Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ottkat

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: March 06, 2004, 08:28:00 PM »
Yeah - love the queer penguins.  And of course they live in my old home town.

And by the way: can I commend you Straight folks on the great user names you all come up with?  Dr. Fucktard, Buttsteak, Penis Birders Anonymous - wow!  Just fabulous.

Kathy

2
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: March 05, 2004, 09:11:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-03-05 14:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"go ahead enjoy your meaningful(?)loving relationships, but stop trying to get everybody to accept it. you freaks cry about every body pushing religious beliefs on you, well stop pushing your beliefs on others."

The problem with this argument is that the issue is one of equality, not beliefs.  I could care less about what you believe if it means that the law is neutral and fair to all of us.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights are about not being fired from your job for being queer, not being denied the right to buy a house or get an apartment where you want, and the right to live your life with the person of your chosing and having the legal benefits and responsibilities available to heterosexual couples.

Kathy

3
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: March 04, 2004, 07:09:00 PM »
First of all, let me just point out that the example given, that extreme violence is acceptable if queer sex (and marriage) is acceptable, is, to be blunt, idiotic.  There is no comparison between extreme violence and the result of a loving relationship between people.

Second, as someone who survived a queerbashing in which I took a baseball bat to the head (in 1989), let me also say: fuck you.  You would not even suggest that example if you knew the horror of that kind of attack.

Moral absolutes?  There are very few.  Sex with children is one.  Yes, such absolutes do exist, and to say somehow that moral opposition to queer sex and gay marriage falls into that catagory is a classic logical fallacy, specifically a False Anaolgy (since both A and B are similar in some quality [here, both gay sex and extreme violence are objectionable to many people], then they are directly comparable in almost all ways [wrong]).

As to whether anyone is actually saying the Bible is "BS" - well, for me it is a nice book written by men; I have read it cover to cover twice, and there is much wisdom in there.  However, it is not of divine authority, IMO.  

I am just saying that it should not, nor any other religious book or system, be used as a basis for making governmental decisions.  If witches were in the majority you would not like it if we required our practices and beliefs to be the basis of societal decisions.  That said, I do think it would be a much kinder society if a few more people saw the kindness of the whole world around them, and less of how they need to control what others do.

Kathy

4
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: March 03, 2004, 10:16:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-03-03 15:50:00, Anonymous wrote:

" so for all these years, the majority of people in the world who oppose this gay stuff have all been wrong? And we`re just now waking up to the fact that this is actually very normal and acceptable? People come on,thats really reaching."


It's called learning.  Some people are capable of it, some people are not.

Kathy

5
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: March 02, 2004, 03:07:00 AM »
I was waiting for Dr. Fucktard to weigh in; good to have him here finally.  However, the actual line I was asked in 1985, about my "deviance," was, "Sooooo, after working here for 9 months, are you still going to hell?"

Always was so nice being the staff member with the "queer" history.  :flame:

And yes, my inital post was about love and marriage, but sex and genitals are fun topics, too!

Kathy

6
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Quit Whining!
« on: February 28, 2004, 05:24:00 AM »
Quote
On 2004-02-27 21:52:00, Therion wrote:

"Notice the diffrence in response from this Board and the straight board to the same post??

Interesting..."


We are a whole lot more earnest over here.  You all from Straight are so much more happy go lucky.... :roll:

Kathy

ps: Therion - thanks for the good wishes on my wedding in the other thread.

7
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Added Kids pictures to my website
« on: February 25, 2004, 05:22:00 PM »
Well, it certainly felt unrequited!  Then again, I did nothing to signal my feelings, so....

Kathy

8
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Added Kids pictures to my website
« on: February 23, 2004, 08:50:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-02-23 14:27:00, tenacious1 wrote:

p.s.

nice ink. i see i'm not the only one here with a taste for good tats! :skull:  :tup:

"


Defintely not!  I have three, wife has three (including a really great one from her knee to her foot!), and we both have more planned for the future.

Maybe we should start a "show yer tattoos" section around here!

As I have said privately in the past - thanks Craig for posting those pix.  I was already persona non grata around KIDS by the point that so many of those parties took place, but it really is nice to remember how everyone looked when we were young and cute (and they also remind me of the unrequited crush I had on Kay Z. at that time).

9
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: February 23, 2004, 08:39:00 PM »
Thank you Kevin, Christy and the rest of you sending good wishes.  I appreciate them, and have conveyed them to my wife.

I just want to make a couple of quick comments about the origin of the Constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state.

First, there are two clauses to this segment of the Constitution (Article III): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

These two clauses achieved two purposes, not one.  The first clause states the government will not come under the influence of any particular church or creed.  This was primarily a response to King George III being the head of the Church of England, which was supported by taxes at that time, and heavily influenced English state policy at that time.  In fact, when the colonies separated, there was an attempt by the Church of England to deprive the United States of any Bishops in the Apostle Peter's lineage (the laying on of hands).  The Episcopal Church in the United States is called that, and not the Church of the United States, because that lineage comes from the Episcopal Church of Scotland, which had severed itself from the Church of England at that time.

The second clause is drawn directly from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which stated that one has the right to enjoy the "free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."

The primary author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was Thomas Jefferson, who, besides not being a Christian (he was a lifelong Deist, a fact easily provable from his papers), was also a Freemason, along with George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and a number of other signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

For anyone not schooled in the history of Freemasonry (admittedly not the most engrossing topic for most people; my interest derives from family history and my own studies in paganism), one of the required rituals of this time was designed to free one from the bounds of Christianity - the reciting of the Lord's Prayer backwards.  That, along with the swearing of oaths to old Roman and Greek Gods, and the keeping of the pentagram, took people pretty far afield from standard Christianity.

In this light, most Constitutional scholars conclude that Article III is therefore meant to provide for both views, that government would stay out of religion, and religion out of government.

By the way, if anyone wants my citations for this discussion, I will gladly post them.

Kathy

10
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: February 22, 2004, 02:39:00 AM »
Hello Anonymous, Most Likely Christian, Person,

Let me just quote you, before I start:

?However, it still doesn?t change the simple fact that the Creator disapproves to say the least!?

I find it curious, in the least, for you to say that you ?do have enough knowledge and experience in Gods word to know what is right wrong? [sic].  Considering that you reference to ?Gods Holy Word? and to Paul?s Epistle to the Romans, then I can surmise that your knowledge and experience are based upon your reading the Bible.

Since you mention Paul, I have to ask how you tease out what to act upon and what to ignore in what he wrote.  If you are a male, do you make sure your wife covers her head in public when she is proclaiming the gospel (if you are female, do you do that on your own)?  Do you consider long hair on a man to be unnatural and a disgrace?  Do you keep your wife from cutting her hair?  Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11 noted all of these as requirements.  And as a master do you keep your slaves well, being mindful that you will all be equal in heaven?  Paul also recommended this in Ephesians 6 (which, by logical extension, means that you can keep slaves!).  Of course, I could go on.  I wonder how you choose the parts of God?s Holy Word that you are going to follow, and those that you won?t.

But acknowledging that one probably cannot follow the Bible literally, that it would be rather ridiculous to do so in this day and age, then why ascribe your beliefs to certain sections of a very old text that you choose to follow as a matter of faith?  If you ?come from a past very similar? to my current lifestyle, then at least acknowledge that you made the choice to leave that life for your own reasons.  What other people may do they will do, but I will not call you a homophobe.  I will however, note that I believe that describing certain aspects as sinful in order to maintain guilt as a motivating negative emotion is counterproductive in my life.  I honestly don?t recommend it.

For me, as a student the Old Religion, I honor the Goddess and the God (neither being ?the Creator,? by the way).  I, however, do not worship anything, and I take nothing on as a belief until I examine it and find its resonance within me.  Sin is not a concept in my life ? I take responsibility for my own actions, I work to act in accordance with ethics, and to honor the dignity of all life around me.  Ergo, I suffer the consequences of my actions.

Mind you, I say none of this to deride your religious beliefs.  You obviously care enough about me to take the time to write, and I thank you.  I am sincere in this; one of the tenets that I follow is to respect other religious, spiritual, and life paths.  I ask that you have the same respect for mine.

Kathy

Ps: Just for future reference: my name used to be spelled Kevin, not Keven.  But out of respect, and since it is my legal name, I do ask that you use Kathy or Kathryn.  Thank you.

11
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: February 20, 2004, 09:33:00 PM »
Quote
On 2004-02-19 17:36:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Awesome Kathy!  History in the making! Congratulations! Let's hope it sticks and... that one day they'll acknowledge it in your town and mine!!

-an old (almost) neighbor from Brooklyn"


If you want, send me an email (email addy is linked at top of diary page) and let me know who you are.  I like to keep in contact with the gang.  For a while a bunch of us were living in Brooklyn.

Kathy

12
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Married in San Francisco
« on: February 19, 2004, 01:01:00 AM »
Heya Gang,

For those of you who want to see, I posted some pix of my wife and I getting married in San Francisco on Monday in the rush of queers to get to City Hall there.

As some of you already know, we were married in Canada last October; however, the US does not recognize it, and maybe with the court fights this one will be legal.  Either way, it was an opportunity for us to express our love and to be a part of history.

Just click on the "WWW" link below, which goes to my diary.  Naturally, you can read the account, or just go directly to the pix.

Kathy

13
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / news footage from 1986
« on: February 19, 2004, 12:51:00 AM »
Well, if nothing else you can always go to the Museum of Television and Radio in NYC (http://www.mtr.org/welcome.htm) since you live in New Jersey (if I read your other post correctly).  They will let you call up and watch any program in their archive, and anything from Channel 2 in New York will be in there.

Kathy

14
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Chr*s Kr*m*r
« on: February 02, 2004, 11:12:00 PM »
I'm going to agree with Christy here; what the hell is the matter with you all?

That place was torture, the couple that ran it were two of the most sociopathic individuals I have ever dealt with, and you all are going after people around here for caring for each other and keeping in contact?  How stupid and petty.

But, as always, such things are said anonymously so people don't have to take responsibility for their opinions.

Kathy

15
Straight, Inc. and Derivatives / Ever get that connection?
« on: January 28, 2004, 10:38:00 PM »
Absolutely!

Actually, we were already smoking when we realized that we both had this experience in common.  We also toasted the god and goddess that let us run loose in a very good world.

Kathy

Pages: [1] 2 3