Reasons for anyone older than 22yo to spend time on Facebook:

1. To stalk Kevin’s friend’s boss.  Or Kevin’s boss’s friend.  Or your friend’s friend named Kevin, gathering enough random information about him to finally stop poking and start flirting, via wussy nonchalant photo comments.
2. To stalk the boy you went on one date with 2 weeks ago, to see whether or not he’d be desperate enough to respond to a 3:15am booty call.
3. To stalk the boy you broke up with 2 weeks ago, to see whether or not he’d be desperate enough to respond to a 3:15am booty call.
4. To stalk Jeff, the star quarterback of your highschool football team who you came dangerously close to kissing that one time at that party like 20 years ago, only to find he’s fat, balding, and a real estate agent.

That’s pretty much it.  Oh, wait, there’s one more:

5. To polish your own profile so perfectly, that #1, #2, and #3 will definitely happen to you, and #4 definitely won’t.

Let me tell you something about the bail out. You know? The bailout that all of the news channels are debating on. The bailout for the car companies and for wall street and for this and for that…

All of the politicians and some of the pundits are convinced that we need a bailout asap, but let me tell you this first ok?

I had a BAIL–OUT recently. Let me tell you about my BAIL–OUT!

“Hey mom, this is your lovely son. Listen I’m in between jobs and paychecks and I need a cushion. You know I’ve never asked you for money but I need to borrow around $400 to make sure that I’m good to go for the time being.”

Mom, being a lovely and selfless woman complies, “oh of course, anything you need!”

So I got MY bail out and guess what? That woman isn’t seeing that money ever again! She knows it, I know it, but we go through the motions.

“Hey mom send me your account number so I can pay you back, send me the account via email though so I can have it handy.” She doesn’t do so, and I’m not sure that she will, because guess what happens with that bail out money…?

That’s RIGHT! I would go out and get an X-box 360. Not only that, I would reserve the next X-box that hasn’t even been announced yet, and I’d put down full price for THAT.

There’s what happens to your bailout.

Oh I’m sorry, this is Citibank, listen….I’ll get you back your money next week…yeah yeah I know I’m doing good! I love you too!

That’s what happens to your bailout.

This is the point in history–children– where capitalism failed. The greed of the private industry destroyed America, and this is when we became socialist…

But we’re in denial of course. If America really is a teenager on the world stage, then this is the stage where America gets some whore drunk.

Holy shit!

Rev Peter Mullen, who is rector of St Michael’s Cornhole Cornhill and some other silly British parish called “St. Sepulchre without Newgate” in London, and is pictured above, wrote in some sort of let’s-pretend-we’re-hip-with-the-kids blog that being a Bored Gay Boy was:

clearly unnatural, a perversion and corruption of natural instincts and affections, and because it is a cause of fatal disease.

He then goes on:

Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS.

In the same blog, Mr Mullen called for all gay pride parades, which he branded “obscene”, to be outlawed.  To which we can only ask, “jeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaallous?!”

His boss God Jesus Christ The Pope The Bishop of London, the Rt. Rev. Richard Chartres, said the posting, which has since been taken down, was “highly offensive”. The Rev Mullen, 66, was told on Friday that he could face disciplinary action.

Let us make it obligatory for bigoted, homophobic, holier-than-thou, far-from-God’s-image, do-unto-others-yeah-bollocks priests to have themselves tattooed.  Tattoo suggestions in the comments, please.

I was throwing out some garbage when I spotted my neighbor’s boyfriend coming back into the apartment building after having thrown out his trash.  We greeted each other and exchanged a few semi-awkward pleasantries [as is always the case when talking to someone so on the periphery and yet so close to your life].  I don’t remember how our conversation leads to the following revelation, but I do remember him springing a surprise on me in regards to my neighbor and himself.

“You know we’re engaged!” 

I had a thousand questions for him, the most important being, “what do you mean, ‘engaged’, exactly?”  He said they had exchanged rings, but I didn’t have the slightest idea what sort of union this could be

A civil partnership? 

An alterna-gay alterna-Christian wedding ceremony? 

A homosexual pagan bloodletting? 

This sort of VIP news needs an overly cheerful, and more importantly, speedy knee-jerk response, and like a good citizen of the U.S.A, I grabbed his arm and congratulated him heartily and in a higher-than-usual pitched voiced.

“Well, con-gra-tu-laaa-tions!”

We live in New York where gay marriage is still a no-no thanks to the—and let’s be honest here—double-faced hypocritical trepidation of our state and local politicians.  Our dear Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged full support for gay marriage just before appealing a lower court’s decision to allow the practice, which is a very similar tactic used by hackers who claim their invasive attacks help companies reinforce their computer defense system.
Unfortunately, we only arrest hackers.

Political grandstanding and bureaucracy aside, I’m always surprised at the public reaction to marriage, especially when people tell me that it is ridiculous to worry about the state of gay marriage in America when there’s a war going on, as if worrying about other things in life during a war makes one an idiot. 

You’re laid off?  Chin up, stop worrying—we’ve got a war going on. 

Your mom has cancer?  Stop your whining—our boys are getting killed!

In pop culture the acceptance of gay marriage is so predominantly high that everyone who supports it sounds like they’re being terribly bothered with a question that has such an obviously accepting answer, “well of course gay marriage should be legal, that’s so dumb!  Everyone should marry whomever they want in life, I’m shocked anyone would ever think the opposite!”

Well they do of course, which is why people have gone out of their way to ban gay marriage in certain States, and you know what? I’m glad they’ve done that.  I’m glad because banning is such a desperate move on a subject that 20 years ago would have been, at the very most, laughed off quietly in polite society. I’m thrilled to know that gay groups are so loud and outspoken on this issue that there needs to be a frenzied opposition to the very idea of such an alleged abomination.

Plus, everyone knows that getting banned is the height of coolness.

Indeed, more than a few gay people are anti-gay marriage as well, what a shocker huh?  I have a suspicion that most of them hold this position because it makes them feel special within a special group [see Jews for Jesus].  I’ve heard many mature and intelligent gay men and women expound the virtues of pursuing other problems in society, such as gay worker’s rights, and others make even more sense when they say that gay men should accept civil unions as long as they receive all the same rights as married heterosexuals.

I don’t know about you but most of that seems really dull.  Gay worker’s rights just doesn’t have the same tingling sensation as “GAY MARRIAGE.”  And if civil unions become completely equal to marriage, why even differentiate the two?  It’s like holding up two apples and saying one is an apple and the other is a civil union, later on down the line we’ll find a loophole to screw you over because they’re named differently, and also there’s a worm in civil union.

Getting back to the lovely couple, after getting engaged to be civilly united, my neighbor and his future life mate [giggle] moved to a suburb in Long Island that is surrounded by overgrown shrubbery, trees, and mom & pop pharmacies.  I wager that’s a little too extreme for my tastes but my neighbor is very much the settling down type, and here was his big chance.

I am going to be at their wedding waving my freak flag high, despite the fact that I’m one of the people you’d least suspect to be so pro-marriage; I love to go out, I love having too many friends, I despise clingy boyfriends, and I’m the one responsible for holding us back on the time-spent-in-a-relationship scale when compared to heterosexuals.

Nevertheless, I am reminded of how I felt when I first came out to myself, there I was sitting in front of my computer watching a porn clip, and after various lewd thoughts crossed my mind, my one first poignant belief as a gay boy crystallized in my mind: “I will never get married now…”

I then imagine how many other young gay people across the country shared the same thought at the moment of their “gay awakening,” and then I wonder if this thought was the first step into depression.

The lucky idealists tell me they always dreamed of their white wedding to their dream man, with the huge cake and the kitchen full of designer dish gifts.  They don’t want religions or governments spoiling their ceremonies and their celebration of love, and I envy their romantic inclinations.

However, the reality is that gay marriage will change everything, no doubt about that, marriage will change, gay people will change, straights will too, and not because of some nefarious plot or loss of morals, but because it is quite simply the way of the world.  Society’s change and they’ve done so since the very concept began. 

My one hope though is that there will be a point where no young gay boy’s first concern will be “I will never get married,’ it’ll be “who’s going to wear white at the wedding?”

Asher Roth raps about his girlfriend and getting drunk. He raps about loving college. Asher Roth is a white boy:

Humina humina humina! Check his Myspace page.

1. Myth 1: Gays already have the right to marry; they have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.  I call this line of reasoning the “Elisabeth Hasselbeck defense,” because the statement is parroted ad nauseum by the popular, conservative co-host of The View.  The argument is ridiculous for obvious reasons.  In Hasselbeck’s world, marriage has everything to do with gender and nothing to do with sexuality, unless, of course, you are heterosexual.  What I find most deplorable about this argument is that it denigrates the very institution that anti-gay-marriage advocates trample on rights to “protect.”  As a Communication scholar, I have worked extensively to chronicle the lives and behaviors of older gay men.  MOST of the older gay men I interview were once married to women.  After years of marriage, the men came out of the sexual “closet” and divorced their wives.  As a relatively young gay man who grew up in the very red state of Texas, I have witnessed gay male peers who, after years of social pressure, marry women.  These marriages overwhelmingly end in divorce, broken homes, heartache, and shared custody of children.  Mrs. Hasselbeck, remind me what were you saying about the current right of gay people to get married and your wish to “protect” the institution of marriage. 
2. Myth 2: Allowing gay marriage ignores the will of the electorate, and, as a result, subverts the basic workings of Democracy.  Checks and balances are an essential part of our Democratic structures.  The “will of the people” is REGULARLY kept in check by the judiciary, especially when the tyranny of the majority infringes upon the rights of minorities and other marginalized groups.  Anti-gay-marriage advocates can’t arbitrarily PICK AND CHOOSE which parts of the constitution apply to the current debate.  When two laws conflict, the judiciary relies on precedent and judicial interpretation to determine prevailing constitutionality.  The history of civil rights in the United States has been shaped by such judicial legacy.  The recent emergence of the label “activist judges” and calls against “legislating from the bench” OBSCURE and MINIMIZE the role of the judiciary in interpreting law and protecting minority rights.  For the record, the California State Legislature has approved gay marriage one two separate occasions, only to have the legislation vetoed by a Republican governor.  The governor vetoed the legislation because he believed the electorate OR the State Supreme Court should determine the legality of gay marriage. The State Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.  Despite his vetoes, California’s governor is against Proposition 8, suggesting the state’s leader believes the judiciary trumps the simple, decreasing, and slight majority vote that eliminated the right of gay people to marry.  OVERWHELMINGLY, the DEMOCRATIC structures at work in California support gay marriage.       
3. Myth 3: Comparing the struggle for gay marriage to the struggle for integration is a “slap in the face” to black America.  Pointing out likenesses between the two movements is not the same as EQUATING the movements.  People compare the movements for a variety of compelling reasons.  Democratic protection of marginalized groups tends to come from the judiciary, a governmental body that relies on PRECEDENT.  Judicial precedent constrains and enables rulings of the court.  When asked to consider the question of gay rights, judges are obligated to look at subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.  The state of California has created domestic partnerships to appease gay rights advocates.  Domestic partnerships are, in theory, a SEPARATE BUT EQUAL institution.  The unions are said to provide rights NEARLY equal to marriage, but the institutions are separate.  Moreover, heterosexual men and women have access to BOTH institutions, meaning they may become domestic partners OR marry; gay people only have access to ONE institution.  The emergence of the “separate but equal” institution of domestic partnerships corners gay America into making obvious connections between the gay marriage debate and Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.    
4. Myth 4: Gay marriage is NOT a civil rights issue.  Rightfully categorizing gay marriage as a civil right is not the same as saying gay marriage is the Civil Rights Movement.  Civil rights refer to protection against public (government) and/or private sector discrimination.  Period.  ELIMINATING the right of gay people to marry is a CIVIC issue.  The California State Supreme Court leaves no room for interpretation; the court rules that, “The right to marry is not properly viewed as a BENEFIT or PRIVILEGE that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the RIGHT constitutes a BASIC CIVIL OR HUMAN RIGHT of ALL people.”  Eliminating that right because a simple, rapidly decreasing, and SLIM majority find gay people to be categorically different than heterosexuals is prejudicial.  One more time: Civil rights are not exclusively tied to the U.S. Civil Rights Movement.  Civil rights are not the exclusive purview of black America. 
5. Myth 5: Gay marriage is a white, elitist gay movement.  Before I dispel this myth, I would like to throw full support behind anyone who might critique racism in the gay community.  Gay organizations and leaders certainly need to conduct more race-targeted outreach, both inside and outside the gay community.  That said, the marriage debate’s exigence was created by state organizations legislating anti-gay discrimination in the form of marriage “protection” laws.  This is the bittersweet irony of the gay marriage debate.  Homophobes put the issue on gay radar.  After Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled sodomy laws violated the 14^th Amendment, I distinctly remember religious leaders suggesting gay marriage would be the next “battle.”  Numerous religious and state organizations, in turn, began legislating gay marriage bans.  In response, gay people challenged the constitutionality of such bans in the judiciary.  Gay people, across the board, have been cornered into the gay marriage debate.  Keep in mind, gay marriage is incommensurable with Radical Feminism and the Queer Movement.  Several people who identify as “queer” have had to rethink their stance on identity politics, because homophobic legislation incited many of them to say, “ I may not want to get married, but I certainly don’t want the state to deny me that right based on prejudicial attitudes against gay people.”  
    
6. Myth 6: Black people are a PRIMARY reason why Proposition 8 passed.  When I first read that 70% of blacks voted in favor of Proposition 8, I was hurt and angry. Let me clarify: When I read the news, I was already hurt and angry that Proposition 8 had passed. I think it’s human nature to want to point the finger and play the blame game when you’re in the midst of being humiliated and scorned.  For the past few days, I have felt utterly conflicted about the 70% statistic. I have walked a line between anti-racist critique and genuine concern for a statistic too salient to ignore. The black scapegoating meme is like wildfire, burning through the gay blogosphere and fanning flames (so to speak) of racism that are and have been ever-present in the gay community.  The statistic doesn’t tell us much; it’s based on a relatively small sample size and exit polling, a statistical medium that has, time and again, proven faulty.  NUMEROUS communities polled at, close to, or above the 70% statistic. Singling out black men and women is prejudicial and racist. The number opens up a world of opportunity. The gay community needs to improve lines of communication with black people.
7. Myth 7: Promoting gay marriage promotes an unhealthy lifestyle.  This is another paradox in anti-gay-marriage logic.  Opponents of gay marriage frequently cite studies that suggest gay men are more promiscuous, and therefore more prone to disease.  They then use this information to justify their homophobic stance on the marriage issue.  Here’s the paradox: Marriage, as an institution, promotes monogamy, which in turn transforms gay marriage into a public health issue.  In other words, promoting monogamy in the gay community would probably decrease promiscuity and, as a result, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.  Note: I don’t mean to judge promiscuous behavior.  I simply hope to point out the flawed logic of the “gay lifestyle” argument.   
8. Myth 8: If gay marriage is legal, children will be exposed to the “gay lifestyle.”  I assure you that, if gay marriage is re-legalized, students will not be bussed to gay bars and forced to engage in gay sex acts.  California has very strict “opt out” laws that guarantee parents the right to opt their children out of educational themes they feel may violate their religious and moral beliefs.  When a person challenges the idea that gay marriage rights and the curriculum of children are different issues, he or she tends to fall into a rhetorical trap set, perhaps inadvertently, by pro-8 men and women. Responding to the argument usually results in accepting the flawed logic that teaching children about gay people is wrong, immoral, and unhealthy. The trap reminds me of many pro-Obama supporters who fervently deny their candidate is Muslim but never seriously address the question, “What difference does it make if he IS Muslim?”  Keep in mind, teaching children that gay people exist DOES NOT TURN CHILDREN GAY, nor does it indoctrinate them into the “gay lifestyle.”  If things were that easy, I would have been indoctrinated in the heterosexual lifestyle a LONG time ago.        
9. Myth 9: If my religious leader doesn’t perform a gay marriage, he will be thrown in jail and my church will lose its tax-exempt status.  Wrong.  This is a red herring and fear tactic used by anti-gay-marriage bigots to obscure the issue.  When the California State Supreme Court ruled in re Marriage Cases, they explicitly state that no religious leader or institution has to perform same-sex marriages.  Finally, denying gay marriage rights infringes on the will of religious institutions that recognize and perform gay marriage.  Denying these rights also potentially forces thousands of gay people to divorce.     

Hey boys and… boys, it’s your resident superstar DJ, Jonny Moirée here with an exclusive download for BoredGayBoy.com readers… Party Trick Vol. 9—an 80-minute party mix.

80-minute party mix, featuring the latest electro, tech-house and gritty r’n'b tunes.

Available for download via mp3 [108mb] or torrent.

Tracklisting:

1. many moons [janelle monae]
2. live your life [r.e.e.o. mix] [t.i. feat. rihanna]
3. behave [quix and b.saurus mix] [janis leahy]
4. seglia [oh snap booty alarm mix] [crookers]
5. do the criminal [dj barletta mix] [golden girls]
6. can we? [chew fu & substantial]
7. flip flopping [black peter group]
8. inna de ghetto [diplo mix] [buraka som sistema]
9. beautiful people [le le]
10. nosebreak [venom & damage mix] [douster]
11. trendy discotheque [pay tv]
12. lollipop [nasty ways mix] [lil’ wayne]
13. when you’re around [boys noize mix] [frankmusik]
14. stagga boy [soulja boy vs. skream]
15. talk like that [the presets]
16. so what? [tony arzadon reconstructed mix] [p!nk]
17. oh shelia [howsephreak mix] [prince]
18. give it up [dj grandtheft acid mix] [pharrel]
19. heart’s a mess [dlake mix] [gotye]
20. 2000007 [modeselektor feat. ttc]
21. fascination [frankmusik alternative edit] [alphabeat]
22. on my own again [thecocknbullkid]

More mixes available for download at jonnymoiree.com.

3000 still photos + 1 live remix by Daft Punk = 2 minutes of sensory overload.  You can almost smell the tramps, alcopops and overflowing urinals.

Dude, where’s my rights?

Spotted at a men’s clothing store in Shibuya, Tokyo, Japan.

Almost as hot as the nonplussed 18yo boy riding the San Francisco MUNI yesterday afternoon in the middle of the afternoon, with a shirt that boldy says:

You can fuck me, you just can’t kiss me.

Let me borrow that top, betch.