HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| Volume-Junkies
Volume-Junkies
♂️
[1814877]
[2005-08-08 23:31:22 +0000 UTC]
"Rockbird"
(United States)
# Statistics
Favourites: 278; Deviations: 124; Watchers: 30
Watching: 60; Pageviews: 19100; Comments Made: 1284; Friends: 60
# Interests
Favorite movies: Metropolis, Who's That Girl, Echte Kerle, Tales of the CityFavorite bands / musical artists: Madonna, Courtney Love, Springsteen, Kate Bush, Bjoerk, Janet, Wir Sind Helden, Blondie, Genesis
Favorite writers: Christopher Isherwood, Stephen McCauley, Patricia McCormick, David Sedaris, Hunter S. Thompson
Favorite games: Tomb Raider 1: Gold
Tools of the Trade: Anything that I can fiddle with.
Other Interests: Literature, Deutsch, Languages, Dance, Performance, Art, Music-- mainly music. And collecting.
# About me
Current Residence: Boston, MAFavourite genre of music: Music should have no limits.
Favourite photographer: Nigel Barker, Scott Mutter, Sendoui
Favourite style of art: German expressionism.
Operating System: Mac OS X Tiger, Windows XP Pro, Windows Vista
MP3 player of choice: Foobar2000, Zune
Favourite cartoon character: Maggie Simpson, Sideshow Bob, Francine Frensky, Cartoon Madonna from WTG.
Personal Quote: Backfired!
# Comments
Comments: 271
Thanks for the Watch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for the fav on "It's Not Easy Being Queen"!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love reading your front page from time to time. Now my brain is full of Panther Hurt.
I think I'll go listen to Womanizer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
WOMANIZER WOMAN WOMANIZER YOU'RE A WOMANIZER OH WOMANZIER OH YOU'RE A WOMANIZER BABY YOU YOU YOU ARE YOU YOU YOU ARE WOMANIZER WOMANIZER WOMANIZER.
All I have is the radio when I drive D:
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YOU MAKE ME SICK D=<
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just keep your love lockdown, your love lockdown.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...
BACKFIRED.
YOUR PLAN! YOUR PLAN!
BACKFIRED.
My man, your plan..
BACKFIRED.
In yo FACE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
*Goes to pee in your shoutbox.*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
So, queer to queer, let's talk about gay marriage. I want to run something by you.
Have you ever thought about how much we could piss off the religious right without even trying to break the law?
Imagine a double wedding. Two women in suits. Two men in dresses. The men marry the women. They live together...but the wives share a bed, the husbands share a bed. All legal rights of marriage are obtained, albeit to the wrong person. But the four have enough invested in each other that they privately shift around who is really in control of the power of attorney over certain partners and stuff...and the queers have found a legal way to totally sabotage the American Ideal of traditional marriage, support each other, and advocate for their relationships AND polyamoury at the same time.
The four have kids together via in vitro fertilization, and raise them together. They write a book on the "new nuclear family." It becomes a best seller, and the idea catches on in the straight world, to some extent, or at least the rest of the gay world.
What would happen?
I hypothesize: The whole religious right would be advocating for legalizing gay marriage on a national level.
Or they'd try to find a way to put a stop to it, and no matter what crap they tried to pull...it wouldn't just be the gay community who would be affected by the new laws, and we'd have a lot more allies.
Is this awesome, is it flawed idealism, is it so crazy that it might just work, or is it just kind of lame?
...I'd let you and your partner have t.A.T.u....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...Ugh...Sounds like a LOT of paperwork. And that means I wouldn't get to sit around the house as much. And I'm quite finished trying to fix the United States. So, fuck it. I'm moving.
I think a better idea is to just start chaining ourselves to city hall if we want to make a real splash.
Oh. And throw bricks at morons.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When are you going to move, do you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good luck with that. I almost wish I could join you, because I hate how America forces you to choose sides, and how you can never fully agree with either...But I think i'll stick it out and try to make this a better place, at least for some people.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it's disgraceful that we can have a black man elected in office, but still have a mirror image of the 1960s civil rights movement.
People need to open their fucking history books, because we are being judged and ostracized just as blacks were fifty years ago. What the hell?
I'd also like to not stick around in case America's going to go all "Final Solution" on us. That may be a crazy statement, but it would not shock me if it happens.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
America? Read?
You're joking!
...I grew up in a house where I was basically made fun of my entire life because I'd rather read a book than watch TV. My mom thinks it's nuts, because when I come home from school I bring home one (small) suitcase, and it's filled with mostly books. I think, to my chagrin, most of America is like my mom, brother, and dad, whether they're liberal or conservative.
It's a lot to be angry about, Trav. And yeah, they could go "final solution" on us. You know that "call in to work gay" thing? I don't personally think it's a good idea, but a lot of comments surrounding that from straight people tended to be kind of annoying. Along the lines of, "great! That'll just remind us of how unimportant they really are. The one down the hall in room 2 is a bitch anyway...."
*shrug* But it hasn't happened yet, and some things do seem to be getting better, even if you and I wouldn't care about them much. The army, for example, is changing the 'no open gays in the military'rule starting with Obama's term. Not just back to "don't ask don't tell," but to "openly gay people can serve in the military." That's a step forward for a lot of service members.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Call into work gay" is absolutely ridiculous. Homosexuality isn't classified a mental illness in America, hasn't been since the 1950s, and that's not what we're fighting for. Most people don't believe we're sick-- just sinful and dirty and disgusting.
Things are getting better, in my opinion; I think we're just easily distracted.
Obama is NOT the Superman that everyone makes him out to be. Not even close to it. Drives me nuts that people lick his ass like he's going to save the world in 4 years.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. But what can you do-- People like the idea of NOT working for a cause. As for being easily distracted...it's true too, but I think we get distracted because there's very little that people in the queer community agree on really strongly, including marriage. Most of us are for having the rights...including me. But I also have very different views about the family structure I would like to have to make a functional life for myself though, and it isn't supported by a two male marriage.
True about Obama-- He's really just another politician...though a better choice than McCain, for me. I just mentioned him because that's what the news article said: the army would change its policy on homosexuals serving in the army during his term.
The point of America, really, should be that there is no superman...but that's what it comes down to, because the political parties decide to cast their candidates that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"But I also have very different views about the family structure I would like to have to make a functional life for myself though, and it isn't supported by a two male marriage.
"
This comment confused me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...I already described this to you, I think. Two men in love, two women in love, form a relationship based on the idea that they will raise children together. Almost like an "arranged marriage," if you will. It solves the problem of gay men not having a womb, and lesbians not having sperm, while allowing the genetic parent of the opposite gender to be a part of the child's life. At the same time, it gives the child unlimited access to four adults with different skillsets and interests, all four of whom are invested in that child's well being. To me that seems like it could be advantageous to someone who was growing up in this world, where so many choices can be made in a lot of diverse ways.
It could be argued that this seems good from the child's perspective, but from the adult's it gets a little crazy. It requires a lot of effort for two parents to work together to raise a child, and most of the time they don't do a good job-- hence the high divorce rate in this country, not to mention plenty of loveless marriages and families with really terrible money problems. But what if having another couple involved eliminated a lot of the problems married couples face today?
A lot of people are working long hours when they would rather be spending time with their kids. Having four sources of income could be advantageous to achieving this end.
Having another couple involved would also spread out the responsibility of getting the kids to and from places, and-- for those times that one couple really needs to get away and be alone together, there's already babysitters living with you.
It's not really that far of a stretch from a lot of family situations today. Rich people have nannies. Divorced people bounce kids back and forth like a game of tennis. Single people with children...do what they can, but usually have to rely on others to help them raise their children. Married couples who both work and can't afford a nanny? They rely on daycare.
It just makes sense to me that gay couples of two genders could rely on each other for a lot of things when it comes to childrearing-- enough so that maybe it would be nice to try and find myself a partner, and a lesbian couple, willing to raise a family together.
I'm a creeper and a nut.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh...this thing. Yeeeaahhh. It's sounds GREAT..
..on paper. :/ But all those mouths in one house? And what if you want more than one child?
And what if one couple divorces? Rather than bounce the kid from A to B, you bounce it from A to B to C. And if all of them divorce? A to B to C to D.
Less is more, man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you want more than one child, you just make it, or you buy one. Like cheese (they even get more rotten with age, but sometimes that's a good thing). you know. Sometimes you get a two for one special even. Bring your club card.
If a man is in a gay relationship and the two men decide to raise children, they will never have a "simple" parental situation. Let me show you:
A gay man in a "simple" gay relationship must either have a surrogate mother, or adopt. If he tries to get a child through a surrogate, there is one woman (so there are three parents, two genetic and one adoptive). If she finds a husband/wife, that's one more adult that could potentially matter to the child.
If the gay couple adopts, then there is another man and woman involved-- so already, there's at least four people involved in the rearing of the kid. This is actually the same for straight couples.
If you adopt, therefore, whatever your sexuality, the fewest number of parents in that child's life is four. If the adoptive parents break up and get new steady S.O.s then there are six parents. If the genetic parents are not together and have partners of their own, that's still eight potential parental figures in four households for that one child. This is the same result as if there were a gay and lesbian couple raising children together, and the four adults had a massive falling out, resulting in each of them getting a divorce and moving into separate apartments, and then all finding other steady lovers.
No matter what you do as a gay person, parenting never gets to be as simple as when one man and one woman have children, and our options if we have breakups while there are children about will never be simple either.
Unless scientists find a way to make two sperms or two eggs act as one egg and one sperm do, we'll never have the luxury of a "simple" family plan. I'd ultimately prefer that, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, unless you adopt an orphan.
YOUR THEORY IS FLAWED! O_O!
BTW, I hate kids, so this totally doesn't apply to me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
mmm. Touche. Thanks for humoring me anyway. I needed to argue the point to someone, to know what would come up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks for faving my RAPTURE! I see you like Ms. Harry, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Love her! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Hard Nintendo" is Amaazing just so you know. It makes me giggle inside each time I see it.
I just wanted to suggest that you look at one of my other friend's artwork. i think her humor is similar to yours and that you might appreciate some of the work she does. [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Her stuff is cute. Watch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey
Thanks for adding time's running out to your favs :d
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the favourite on my Sex & The City drawing
xxx
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>