I’ve added a comments feature to this page, using BlogKomm. (Who knew?) And so, from now on, I won’t be updating my LiveJournal or Xanga sites. They will, like my unknown Blog-City account, fade into obscurity and nothingness.

I’m going to try to move the comments from both sites over to this site eventually. For now my main goal is to redesign this page to make it look a little nicer, and to make the comments fit better. I also need to add my new RSS (Atom) feed as a link on this site.

The main reason I’m posting now is because I’ve started using Bloglines to subscribe to pretty much everything I read…and through Bloglines I’ve been reading a lot more news. Because of that, I have six links I want to share…so here they are!

And that’s about it. I’m sure I’ll find more links soon though…Bloglines is going to suck my life away, I just know it.

1 comment

  1. Original comments from BlogKomm

    But… but… now I can’t use my icons and stuff!

    *waits for the redesign before providing opinion*
    Shade[@][H], 03.25.2004, 5:42 pm

    Great! And what interesting topics you have linked there, My Dear. So far as the gay marriage thing goes, I certainly don’t understand all the Heartland outrage. Let’s see: God struck Onan dead for “spilling his seed” … so, does that mean we should prevent all practicers of Onanism from marrying, too? Hmmm … How many Baptist deacons would be up a creek on that one? Where’s the OUTRAGE about masturbation, people?!?! I want anger.
    der Matt[@][H], 03.25.2004, 8:17 pm

    Heather[@][H], 03.26.2004, 3:08 pm

    masturbation isn’t as much of a political issue as gay marriage because masturbators aren’t uniting and demanding they be given rights as a group specifically protected by the constitution. the same is true in the Onan instance. you don’t see all the people who pull out banding together to get tax benefits.

    inside many churches, there is outrage towards sexual promiscuity. this covers not only homosexuality, but also premarital sex, adultury, and masturbation.

    You don’t see that kind of thing on television because many believe that while the act is wrong, forcing someone to act according to a set of rules to which they do not proscribe is pretty meaningless and judgmental.

    you may argue that the same thing is happening in the case of gay marriage, but in that case, such behavior is quite public and can adversely affect one’s family and the way they choose to live thier lives. the above mentioned sexual behaviors are instead quite private and rarely spoken of in public circles, at least, in a political sense.
    chris (foreman)[@], 03.28.2004, 10:33 pm

    First, love is not a prerequisite for marriage. I look at my parents and am convinced of that. But that’s a good thing since no one can even seem to define the term.

    I am a supporter of the constitution and therefore a supporter of not discriminating against someone because of a characteristic of their birth. At the same time, I classify a homosexual lifestyle as a choice. I have talked with numerous homosexuals who agree with me and others who do not. According to my belief system, I do not believe man was created that way. Therefore, to me, a homosexual lifestyle is the same as choosing to smoke. Is it right to make a smoker stand outside to smoke simply because my lungs are affected by the smoke particles? Is it really any different than homosexuality?

    Currently, the laws of the country define homosexual relationships as deviant, not just my particular religious belief system. obviously some object, but not all, and possibly, not even a majority object to the classification. personally, does that mean I treat them different than any other human? No. Does the law? Yes.

    How do I justify the setting up of the belief system of a particular group as the norm? Democracy at work. The founders of the counrty created a system where the majority would rule and the minority would be heard. Over the two hundred + years this country has been around, that’s been the case. I don’t try to justify it, I just live in it. In fact, that same system is the best in which the minority view can effectuate the change it desires.

    You are attempting to change that system. The burden should not be on me to justify its existence, but on you as to why it should be changed.
    chris (foreman)[@], 03.28.2004, 11:02 pm

    I can’t wait to see the redesigned site when it’s finished Heather!
    chris (foreman)[@], 03.28.2004, 10:34 pm

    Isn’t refusing to allow people who love each other to marry adversely affecting their family (or what family they’re allowed to have) and the way they choose to live their lives?

    Are you, then, only a supporter of special rights–for those who follow a particular belief system–and not equal rights?

    In other words…what, beyond the philosophies of a particular religion, makes homosexual relationships deviant? How can you justify setting up the value system of one particular group of people as the standard for all people? Isn’t establishing the rules system of a particular religion as law essentially making church and state one entity?
    Heather[H], 03.28.2004, 10:42 pm

    Allowing homosexuals to marry does not change the democratic system. Marriage is a relationship between two people that is legalized for monetary purpose and to add social legitimacy.

    There is no part of the Constitution that states that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. If there was, President Bush wouldn’t need to put that in an amendment. Any laws that exist in that vein are at the state, or lower, level. The democratic, national system that the founding fathers created is in no danger whatsoever. Allowing homosexuals to marry is simply acknowledging the rights they already have under the U.S. Constitution. By my read, states that disallow gay marriage are in violation of Article XIV, Section 1, specifically (emphasis mine):

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    Heather[@][H], 03.28.2004, 11:59 pm

Comments are closed.