adblue

Hold on, gang. We don't know the whole story here. He waived rights, verbally, but yet put his name on the birth certificate and remained in contact with gifts and calls. (Hey, laudable, I think.) The child's moms moved and dropped contact. (Was that their choice or was the man becoming demanding or controlling in some way? We don't have any indication he was, but maybe they thought so.) Now the moms are seeking back-pay in child support? Hmm. That doesn't make sense or support the idea that he could've been a problem for them. I would tend to say the sperm donor is right. However -- In a way, both sides are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The moms want back-pay in child support. After the child is 18 and in college. Sorry, that's really not the time to ask for it. They were in contact with him for years. The sperm donor or biological dad isn't faultless. He gave his name on the birth certificate. He stayed in contact and gave presents. Didn't he give other support for the child? Didn't the moms accept those things? Even though he verbally waived rights, he still (admirably) wanted contact to give the child a sense of fulfillment. -- So why *not* contribute fully to the child's support? (Alright, the moms are a couple and the sperm donor is married. Even so, why not help raise his biological child, if he was still going to be in contact? It's a gray area, but you can see what my choice would be. If I fathered a child, I'd want to be involved in his or her life, if possible.) I don't at all dispute that the man had good intentions, in staying in contact and giving gifts. That's great for the child and him. It just seems a shame not to extend that to partial custody and support, if the relationships were amicable among all of them. So now, here's junior (young guy or girl) in college, and his mothers are fighting his sperm donor biological father over money. He hasn't had contact with the dad in years. -- It's going to tear up the now-adult child. I hope he or she gives them all a piece of his (her) mind. I sure hope the judge does.

I'm American, so, "color." But when I edit for International English, I have to switch to "colour." The same goes for "gray and bluegray" versus "grey and blue-grey." I never have understood, "gauge." I don't think I'll ever understand, UK "gaol" for US "jail," though. For that matter, why don't any of us spell "lose" as "looze" and "loose" as "loose" or "looce" ? Or how about, "rede" and "lede" (present) and "red" or "redd" and "led" or "ledd" (past)? Or "leeding" and "ledding" ? Ah well, a rose would still smell as sweet, thorns and all.

Gee golly, proper Frenchifying (French frying?) and everything. Alors, f

Hi Everyone. First, Thank You. Second, don't feel guilty. You still get to know who he was, what he said, and his friends are still around. Enjoy the site, the stories and poems, and the community of people. That's why it's there and we're there. Codey's World will be growing and moving forward. We have no intention of letting it get stale. It isn't so much a memorial or a legacy, as it is meant to be a thriving place for friends and family and good things to read.

Belief (including religious belief) is a personal opinion, often based on teaching (upbringing) and interpretation (discussion) and some experience (personal interpretation). Importantly, it's often tied into emotions (feelings). So yes, it's very hard to change what people believe, even in the face of opposing evidence and arguments or discussions. Some people have used science through a belief in "the natural world" or evolution, to justify homophobia. So it isn't just the fault of religions. Even if being gay is found to have a genetic, biochemical, environmental, or psychological basis, some people will claim it's a fault, like some other factors in those areas. Many, though, may decide the old arguments against being GLBT don't make sense to them. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to point out that some Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe it isn't wrong/sinful to be gay, although many do. It depends on the translation and interpretation of the original languages and cultures of their sacred books and on customs built up over the centuries. When I became brave/curious/desperate enough, I looked online for discussions of translation and interpretation of the Bible, because I hadn't found anything in the books (various Bible translations, concordances, etc.) my parents or I had that supported anything other than a negative view of homosexuality, or most sex. Of course, any discussions like that have to take into account early Christianity and Jewish thought. What I found truly surprised me. Yes, there are sincere, faithful translations and interpretations of the Old and New Testament passages that offer either more understandable or milder or even supportive words for faithful same-sex couples. Instead, what they condemn are things most of us would consider immoral: abuse of power or age, use of violence, unsafe sexual hygiene, multiple partners (unsafe sex and ignoring their feelings), and so on. There are even arguments presented in those discussions that claim a few individuals or friends/pairs might have been same-sex couples. (Some of those, I found believable; others, I think are unlikely or ridiculous.) Yes, some groups within Jewish believers say that Judaism does not condemn homosexuality, while others say it is against Jewish Law. I'd never known any of Jewish thought ever accepted it. Yes, some groups within Christian believers say that Christianity should not condemn homosexuality, while others, of course, say it's against Christian teachings. I'd never known any of Christian thought accepted it... despite an ongoing debate within my own denomination. Wow, it was freeing! It's true, Jesus' own words as recorded never speak on homosexuality, either for or against it. Several times, though, he speaks with people who were considered sexually immoral or ritually unclean. Each time, he doesn't condemn or judge them. Note: at the time, he was speaking as a Jewish teacher to both Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles). In other words, I don't intend to be pro- any religion in saying that. (Consider it my opinion on the literature itself and on the commentaries offering support for acceptance of GLBT people.) For the record, yes, I'm gay and Christian, and I've had an uneasy time reconciling the two. It was one excuse (for me anyway) to stay in the closet for so long, and I still find myself trying to integrate the two into a whole "me." But I don't think it's useful for us to look at it from the view of only science or only one religious group. If we want people to really look or really change, it has to be a broader perspective. ...And shouldn't our goal be the truth, even if we find a few of our beliefs are right and others might need rethinking? My goal in my response is to say we have to look at the whole picture and be open minded, if we really want to find the answers ourselves or promote other people's search for those answers.

I'm a gay guy. I'm right handed, and my ring finger's longer than my index finger. I'm an only child, but my mom had at least two pregnancies before me and one or two after. I have no idea which way my hair whorl turns. My hair turned wavy after puberty, not that that has anything to do with anything. I find it really interesting that many of Colin's closest friends are gay. Looking back, I now think several of my closest friends in school may have been gay or leaning that way, but I don't know for sure. However, I didn't get to fool around much (and not as much as I would've liked, if I'd really admitted it).

Call the police and ask. Look up a GLBT community center and ask. We can give you advice, but we aren't right there where you are. You have friends, neighbors, an employer and co-workers, school counselors/teachers/professors, local clergy, heck, talk to clerks at the stores you visit, if you have to. -- Tell them it's your boyfriend or tell them it's your roommate. Whatever. What I mean is, you have people you can turn to there. You don't have to be alone in getting through a problem. Don't be scared. Be confident, be smart, be strong, and take action. -- I say this as a pretty passive guy. You *can* change things for the better. Do it. Please.

Aw, if they talk to themselves, they might at least be entertaining, or even profound. Or so I/we tell myself/ourselves.... Oops! Hahaha, have fun, guys and girls.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a frisky Frank the invisible friend than a frisky Frank the rasta zombie. Freaky frisky Frank Zombie the rasta frightful foe, few find him faultless, you know! On the other hand, a frisky rasta invisible zombie might really liven up a party. Or would that be deaden down a party? OK, I'm confused now. Hideous, horrid, rasta zombie, but hard to tell how haggard, because he's invisible. That's it. Wait, if a zombie gets frisky, um do things, uh, fall off? :yikes: Ewww! So sorry. Very sorry. :: is ashamed :: Haphazard and less than half complete, the invisible yet horrible rasta zombie remains indefatiguably frisky. Yes, it just gets scarier and crazier the more I chatter on. Toodles, Frankie boy!

Your primary responsibility is for your own safety. Get yourself out of that abusive relationship as carefully and quickly as possible. Anyone who would put a pan of hot grease near your face is not a friend or a lover. He doesn't get an excuse for that. He has severe problems. Sure, he needs help. The police and a therapist can do that. You can and should complain about the abuse to the police. Get yourself safe first. If you can, get friends and/or the police to come over and get you out of there. If you can tell family or friends before you leave, good; but you can tell them afterward and you can have friends call for you too. Your possessions are nowhere near as important as your safety and your life. Things can be replaced. Sure, take them if you can, by having friends or the police there to help you get your things, or at least important papers. But honestly, if it's you or your stuff, choose you. You are not bad or stupid or undeserving or crazy. You are a guy who is putting up with someone else's incredibly bad behavior. You don't need to take him back or forgive him or go back to him. That is not an "awww, that's sweet, he'll change, I can change him" relationship. That is a "get me the **** out of here, he's bad news" relationship. Please listen to the good advice you're getting from people here. Get yourself in a better situation, then get help to rebuild your life. You *can* do it. So do it! :hugs:

What?! They killed Kenny? I mean, Badass.Girl.Starbuck? Hmm, that takes cajones. Or an onset of the stupids. OK, I'll admit it. I haven't watched much of the new BSG. I can't seem to get into it. I've liked what I've seen. The trouble is, I remember the original from when I was a kid. Heck, I knew it was cheesy, but I liked the family/team feel they had, and it was fun, enjoyable scifi, with some occasional real thought to it. I had major problems with them adding "Six" aka 7of9 meets BSG, and with them changing Starbuck to a woman, because it would mess with the the Starbuck-Apollo friendship. (I really liked Dirk Benedict's Starbuck, btw.) Yes, Galactica 1980 was really embarrassing. To the questions in the thread: Starbuck was "killed" in the original BSG, but saved and brought to a planet/desert-island and had a demigod child with a woman named Circe. (See Greek mythology.) Apollo and Sheba in the classic BSG, ran across a starship of the "Messengers of Light" (or some such) who were regarded as godlike beings. They effectively had a near-death/out-of-body/other-dimensional experience, where they were given a "vision" about the location of Earth. Then they were returned, unharmed, to the Galactica. -- If you'd like to watch the old Galactica episodes, they're worth it. They're 1970's scifi TV. At the time, they were big, big budget TV, the best SFX available. (they overspent on real computers and monitors, and had COBOL er, Lords of Kobol, graphics...yeah.) Anyway, by modern standards, they're still fun. Heck, I have the old movie on DVD. ----- Hmm, so they killed off Starbuck in the new show? Well, they could be setting up for a vision of Earth or a way to get past problems with the Cylons. I've liked recent episodes I've seen. I guess it's growing on me.... Help, I'm being absorbed, assimilated, I... "Resistance is futile. You will be...." OK, wrong show, I know. ...Can I just say, unrelated to anything, I love Farscape? Thank you. Back to BSG shock.

I suspect irony, as opposed to brassy, was involved in Bondwriter's wry comment. Hahaha, but good catch on St. Paul and Muhammed. (In all fairness to both religions.) (And I'm saying that line of discussion's not meant to open up large cans of worms.)

Ahnold as Hamlet? Oh boy, what alternate universe have I landed in this time? (Sorry, Arnie, wherever you are.)

Thanks, everyone, I really appreciate it.

After a little searching, I've confirmed that's Catalan = Catal