sexual minority

Sexual Minority: I noticed on the program for the Larimae project (sp?) that there was an add for support of sexual minorities. What does that include? I guess it included Homosexuals, transvestites, transgender individuals, and other such people? I am not entirely sure. What makes a sexual minority? Is it purely sexual preference or does it constitute not having sex or partaking in felatio (sp?) as well? I would imagine so, and hope that it would for those groups of people, whom have not had sexual intercourse or of the like, are growing to be the minority these days. I believe that its almost always been like that cause were all "heathens" and cant "control" ourselves. Most people fit that mold. So, akin to abstinence before marriage, would people who are faithful to their spouse a sexual minority? What about polygamists, do they get to be a sexual minority? Where is the line drawn? I really don't get it. Sexual minority. Define it for me cause it seems too broad to me. On a similar note: I have come to the conclusion that it is ok to love whom you want to love. I have always believed that you have the right to love and be loved but I know that there are many out there whom don't want some to love because of sexual preference. Note that I prescribe to "acts of Homosexuality are bad" but i think the catch there is "sexuality". Not knowing off hand what sexuality is defined as, I would figure that it would be ok for a man to love a man, or a woman to love a woman, without having sex. Rough deal? Yes. Rewarding, definitely. Lets face it; anyone can do without sex. You can, don't lie. Its like a bonus prize. But if you love someone, isn't caring for them, nurturing them, putting them first in your life reward enough? Debatable to some. I think the older you get, the less you care about sex, the less important sex becomes, the more you realize what life is all about. Its not sex. Its love. So...Does my last thought put me in the sexual minority?!

Mad Money

I just got done watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  If anyone hasn't seen the episode where he attempts to tear apart Jim Cramer from Mad Money on CNBC, you should take a look at it and form an opinion.  

Not being a fan of Jon Stewart has been a specialty to me.  It is not hard for me to think of him as an arrogant man with an uncanny way of cutting nice, polite people off when they are trying to rebuttal their point, and then smear there face in crap.  I saw him do it to presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and now Jim Cramer.  

Jon brought up a point that I caught with my logically trained receptors of truth and, in my mind, turned it against him.  " Shouldn't you have been warning us about what was going on with these huge gambles in the market?"

I thought to myself, "No". then I didn't know if that was right.  And I'll tell you why:

1. People are free, in a free market, to buy, sell, trade at any rate they want to, as long as it is not illegal.  They are FREE to do this. That is the beauty of America. We are free to act for ourselves, and there isn't anything people should be able to do, as long as you are not breaking the law.  Now, I don't understand real estate very well, so I do not know if the big CEO's of the huge companies that have recently went belly up and asked for bail out money have done anything wrong.  Which brings me to my next point...

2. If these people didn't break the law, should they be indicted?  It seems to me that they are stealing from the American people and are getting away with it.  Should they reap what they are sewing?  I definitely think so.

So, my main points that I wanted to get out was, Jon Stewart was unfair to Jim Cramer. He brought him on the show to brow beat him about other peoples actions, and blame him for not revealing the truth to the rest of the world.  And that AIG, Freddy Mac  and company and anyone else who has gambled, misusing american citizens trust, should maybe be convicted. maybe. I'm not sure.

In other news: It all starts in a garage.

Luke Unplugged

I think the thing I struggle with the most is being accepted by people I know.  I feel sooo lonely most of the time and I think it stems from being an only child and constantly trying to reach out to surround myself with people that care about me (which are few I guess).   I have a base of people that I love and that seem to love me back. Then I have people I believe to be friends, who treat me like they love me when I am around, but when I am not, I never hear from them, even when I reach out to continue a friendship.  Then there are those whom I know, who I don't put stock in because they could care less, and I guess I could too. Even my blog only has 3 followers, and two are obligated to follow cause if they don't... Well, nothing really. Only one comment on my blogs. This after I invited over 200 people to follow.

So, what is it about myself that repulses people?  Do I come off too strong?  Do I push everyone away? Why am I not part of the crowd?  

Ok, so when I wrote that last question just now I kind of got glad in my heart because I am very different from the crowd. I am that black sheep in the corner most of the time. The difference between the black sheep and the crowd is the whole group is called "crowd" the other individual gets a cool name like "black sheep" (also a rap group in mid 90's).

Even if I am unique and I stand outside of the crowd for the rest of my life I will probably continue to be outcast, involuntarily, by others. 

I just don't get it. It hurts, and it makes me sad.

Maybe I'll just give everyone a collection of 25 classic dvd's as a token of our relationship. :)

Ok ok ok... Here's my point:

Jesus was not a government; so when he healed the sick, caused the blind to see and "hung out with the lepers" he was not emulating anything a government should do for the people. 

Jesus Christ gathered followers, showed them how to be charitable, and then sent those who were willing to be charitable on the Lords errand. He commanded "feed my lambs" which I am positive had more than one meaning, and the volunteers went out and donated "feed" of many kinds to many different people in need.

Our government is not a charity organization and should not be giving hand outs. It does no good except to the recipient, but even then benefits them just for a little while, until they grasp to the notion that there is plunder to be had, and that the plunder comes from a renewable source. Then the system is shot for they are now asking for and even expecting hand outs.

Jesus taught people how to be charitable. He did not take from the rich and give to the poor. He asked people to take from themselves and give to the less fortunate. If done properly, it benefits all.

So, I guess my real point is that we fail when government is our charity organization, because then we are required to give, instead of giving out of the goodness of our hearts.

On a separate note...How are world leaders notified when they are going to be engaged in war? Are they? Are some world leaders more polite than others and send an email before they invade a country? What's on that email? "To whom it may concern, we will be invading your country around 4pm your time. Hope to see you then. Warm Regards, Canada." And what if you forgot to check your email that day? Boy, whomever Canada was invading was screwed.