Well burning CDs seems to be addicting and like I said I really had a difficult time deleting various tracks. So I have come out with volume two and three.
Two is somewhat more subdued but still has a rock to it.
Three is more southern rock and roll and contains some longer tunes that seemed to be the norm back in the 70's.
I shall list the tracks of these two CD's in a future musing.
I read The Jim's comments and I tend to agree with his criticism somewhat.
Although they are not top on my list, I do like Queen. Believe it or not in England, they rank second only to the Beatles for the most popular music group of all time. If you are into the Highlander thing you have to like Who Wants to Live Forever. I am listening to it as I type this blog. I nearly added it a couple of times on the CDs. It just did not have that Rock Punch. It should be Adam Lambert's first single though.
And just to be fair, I am not a big Aerosmith fan. I included one of their tunes simply to round out the CD. When selecting the tunes I was thinking of my co workers/revelers and some of their favorites band. It boiled down between Aerosmith and Journey. I have stated before that I can not tolerate Journey, even if "The Dog" played for them at one time. The Aerosmith tune I picked was not really that big of a hit but it tends to rock pretty good even though it starts out as an acoustic song.
Ok, So here is my Thursday Tirade.
So why are they referred to as Gay's and Lesbians?
Aren't lesbians gay females? I freely admit that I am not attracted sexually to members of the same sex as I. As a Roman Catholic, I accept the Church's teaching that homosexuality is sinful and perverse. But I also accept the Church's teaching that we should love everyone and be able to forgive anyone. I am not convinced that persons are simply born gay. The idea that a man is inside a woman's body or vice a versa is something that I do not buy. I truly believe it is a copt out. I do however, believe that some people have more and some have less sexual drive than others. Hell, I love sex but to be honest, I do not think about it 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I hope that does not mean that I may swinging the other way. I have said it before, I would not mind being gay if I did not have to have sex with other dudes.
Now you may believe I am conflicted or undecided in this matter. Your observations are incorrect. Personally I feel that if persons prefers to be "close" to someone that is their natural right to do so. Futher, I believe it is none of my (or yours) business to judge.
I know people who are gay. I know they are and they make no secret of the fact. I do not discriminate my friendship or respect of them. They are as much God's children as I am.
But that brings up the concept of Gay Marriage. Have you ever heard the expression "separation of Church and State"?
Did you know that those words are not specifically used in our republic's constitution or any of its subsequent amendments? It is a theory. The State does not want the Church telling it what it should do and likewise the Church is not too thrilled of being controlled by the State. It is a happy compromise that from time to time is messed with. Good examples of what I mean by "messed" are crosses on government property that people want removed,or the word "God" being removed from our currency, or the removal of prayer in school. Now I seem to be sliding somewhat off track
but let me right the sails. If you read the New Testament (you can choose any number of versions or translations) you will learn that the first of Jesus Christ's miracles was at a wedding. He changed water into wine. He did so at the insistence of his mother and depending how you interpret the passage, you tend to feel he may have been pressured into doing it and was not too happy with dear Mother Mary. He referred to her as "woman". Marriage is an institution that has been around obviously before Christ. I do not know exactly when the concept first started. Perhaps with Adam and Eve. Most scholars will agree that marriage was in reality, an affirmation of a bond sanctioned by both the public and a god. (note lower case).
When I was much younger, if two people lived together and if they were of the opposite sex, it was referred to as "shacking up". Well sorta. My cousin Mike attended the University of Arkansas. His parents, my aunt and uncle found this 15 acre home site in the Ozark Mountains not too far from Fayetteville. They purchased the house from a little 72 year old woman with the conditions of the sale, she be allowed to continue to live in the house. She cooked some of Mike's meals and washed his clothes. So I wonder if it could be could be said that Mike and the old lady were shacking up. Ha Ha Ha, I even referred to her as the old lady. Because Mike and the old lady lived under one roof for nearly four years, The State of Arkansas considered that they were "married" by "Common Law".
Now on the other hand if two guys roomed together or two women did the same, they were just roommates.
So by now this whole tirade is pretty convoluted.
So I will get to my point.......In summation (see I am getting to a conclusion) It is my belief that "civil unions" should be allowed . Insurance and succession issues (ie. inheritance and spousal benefits) would apply equally regardless or the couples gender or genders. Civil Unions would and should be as legally binding as what we state marriage is today. By definition they are the same as marriage. Each could refer to their "spouse" as husband wife or whatever term "floats their boats" These unions should be reciprocal from state to state just as our current marriages are. Once a "union" is made, then it can and should only be dissolved by a civil authority. On the other hand, the Church should dole out marriages.
To prove I am not hypocritical, The Mrs The Third and I were "wed" by a Justice of the Peace of Harris County Texas on June 28, 1989. Each of us had been "married" before. Both of those weddings were conducted in "a Church" Hers in some "heretic" Church and mine in a Catholic Church. Both of our previous marriages were "legally" ended by a Divorce Decree issued by a State of Texas, County of Harris Court. It took over five years before the Catholic Church "annulled "our previous marriages. For my non Catholic readers the process of annulment essentially determines if there was really a "marriage" or a civil union. Within a week of receiving the annulment decree the Mrs The Third and I were "married" in the Catholic Church on February 10 1995.
But if you ask, we did not celebrate our fourteenth anniversary a few months ago. We will celebrate twenty years of wedded bliss one month from today. Since we were wed our respective former spouses have each been married 3 separate times. Or should I say they have each had 3 civil unions.
Two is somewhat more subdued but still has a rock to it.
Three is more southern rock and roll and contains some longer tunes that seemed to be the norm back in the 70's.
I shall list the tracks of these two CD's in a future musing.
I read The Jim's comments and I tend to agree with his criticism somewhat.
Although they are not top on my list, I do like Queen. Believe it or not in England, they rank second only to the Beatles for the most popular music group of all time. If you are into the Highlander thing you have to like Who Wants to Live Forever. I am listening to it as I type this blog. I nearly added it a couple of times on the CDs. It just did not have that Rock Punch. It should be Adam Lambert's first single though.
And just to be fair, I am not a big Aerosmith fan. I included one of their tunes simply to round out the CD. When selecting the tunes I was thinking of my co workers/revelers and some of their favorites band. It boiled down between Aerosmith and Journey. I have stated before that I can not tolerate Journey, even if "The Dog" played for them at one time. The Aerosmith tune I picked was not really that big of a hit but it tends to rock pretty good even though it starts out as an acoustic song.
Ok, So here is my Thursday Tirade.
So why are they referred to as Gay's and Lesbians?
Aren't lesbians gay females? I freely admit that I am not attracted sexually to members of the same sex as I. As a Roman Catholic, I accept the Church's teaching that homosexuality is sinful and perverse. But I also accept the Church's teaching that we should love everyone and be able to forgive anyone. I am not convinced that persons are simply born gay. The idea that a man is inside a woman's body or vice a versa is something that I do not buy. I truly believe it is a copt out. I do however, believe that some people have more and some have less sexual drive than others. Hell, I love sex but to be honest, I do not think about it 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I hope that does not mean that I may swinging the other way. I have said it before, I would not mind being gay if I did not have to have sex with other dudes.
Now you may believe I am conflicted or undecided in this matter. Your observations are incorrect. Personally I feel that if persons prefers to be "close" to someone that is their natural right to do so. Futher, I believe it is none of my (or yours) business to judge.
I know people who are gay. I know they are and they make no secret of the fact. I do not discriminate my friendship or respect of them. They are as much God's children as I am.
But that brings up the concept of Gay Marriage. Have you ever heard the expression "separation of Church and State"?
Did you know that those words are not specifically used in our republic's constitution or any of its subsequent amendments? It is a theory. The State does not want the Church telling it what it should do and likewise the Church is not too thrilled of being controlled by the State. It is a happy compromise that from time to time is messed with. Good examples of what I mean by "messed" are crosses on government property that people want removed,or the word "God" being removed from our currency, or the removal of prayer in school. Now I seem to be sliding somewhat off track
but let me right the sails. If you read the New Testament (you can choose any number of versions or translations) you will learn that the first of Jesus Christ's miracles was at a wedding. He changed water into wine. He did so at the insistence of his mother and depending how you interpret the passage, you tend to feel he may have been pressured into doing it and was not too happy with dear Mother Mary. He referred to her as "woman". Marriage is an institution that has been around obviously before Christ. I do not know exactly when the concept first started. Perhaps with Adam and Eve. Most scholars will agree that marriage was in reality, an affirmation of a bond sanctioned by both the public and a god. (note lower case).When I was much younger, if two people lived together and if they were of the opposite sex, it was referred to as "shacking up". Well sorta. My cousin Mike attended the University of Arkansas. His parents, my aunt and uncle found this 15 acre home site in the Ozark Mountains not too far from Fayetteville. They purchased the house from a little 72 year old woman with the conditions of the sale, she be allowed to continue to live in the house. She cooked some of Mike's meals and washed his clothes. So I wonder if it could be could be said that Mike and the old lady were shacking up. Ha Ha Ha, I even referred to her as the old lady. Because Mike and the old lady lived under one roof for nearly four years, The State of Arkansas considered that they were "married" by "Common Law".
Now on the other hand if two guys roomed together or two women did the same, they were just roommates.
So by now this whole tirade is pretty convoluted.
So I will get to my point.......In summation (see I am getting to a conclusion) It is my belief that "civil unions" should be allowed . Insurance and succession issues (ie. inheritance and spousal benefits) would apply equally regardless or the couples gender or genders. Civil Unions would and should be as legally binding as what we state marriage is today. By definition they are the same as marriage. Each could refer to their "spouse" as husband wife or whatever term "floats their boats" These unions should be reciprocal from state to state just as our current marriages are. Once a "union" is made, then it can and should only be dissolved by a civil authority. On the other hand, the Church should dole out marriages.
To prove I am not hypocritical, The Mrs The Third and I were "wed" by a Justice of the Peace of Harris County Texas on June 28, 1989. Each of us had been "married" before. Both of those weddings were conducted in "a Church" Hers in some "heretic" Church and mine in a Catholic Church. Both of our previous marriages were "legally" ended by a Divorce Decree issued by a State of Texas, County of Harris Court. It took over five years before the Catholic Church "annulled "our previous marriages. For my non Catholic readers the process of annulment essentially determines if there was really a "marriage" or a civil union. Within a week of receiving the annulment decree the Mrs The Third and I were "married" in the Catholic Church on February 10 1995.
But if you ask, we did not celebrate our fourteenth anniversary a few months ago. We will celebrate twenty years of wedded bliss one month from today. Since we were wed our respective former spouses have each been married 3 separate times. Or should I say they have each had 3 civil unions.
But my Thursday Tirade would not be complete if I did not admit I am not too hip about "flamers" or "dykes".
John 2: 3-5
The Third
John 2: 3-5
The Third
OMG that video is funny! Although I am sure you are def not being politically correct. I have enjoyed both of your posts. I guess I need to get back on the pace and write one as well. AND by the way what the hell is wrong with Journey? I love them.
ReplyDelete