Languish.org

Quote from: Caliga on June 19, 2009, 05:16:24 AM
I like the idea of a [Gay] tag.  :)

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 06:29:54 AM
First, the conservative Polish ex-prime minister (who got the biggest number of votes in Poland during the EP elections and is now being considered for the new European Parliament's speaker) said that while he does not support gay marriage, he is for civil unions, with joint taxation and inheritance for gay couples; and then (more surprisingly) pretty much the same was said by the Catholic Archbishop of Warsaw (until now the church opposed any forms of legal recognition for same sex couples).

Quote from: Grey Fox on June 19, 2009, 07:20:28 AM
Now that he has his own thread he star talking about issues in his own Country. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:59:50 AM
LOL apparently now PiS wants to go the Lithuanian way and ban "promotion of homosexuality" in Poland. I hope they fail.  <_<

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 04:33:36 AM
WARNING: This thread is gay.

Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2009, 08:32:35 AM
The Pride Parade might be canceled in Toronto because of an very likely strike by "outside" city workers. Unions hate the gays.

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 08:34:46 AM

Quote from: HVC on June 19, 2009, 08:32:35 AM
The Pride Parade might be canceled in Toronto because of an very likely strike by "outside" city workers. Unions hate the gays.

Isn't the whole point of the parade to confront homophobia in society?  Cancelling it to avoid martyrdom at the hands of homophobes seems rather counter to that.

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 04:33:36 AM
WARNING: This thread is gay.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpix.motivatedphotos.com%2F2008%2F9%2F23%2F633577592665924127-homosexuals.jpg&hash=e3d54e6d021192d6a756c5d4a0d410cdfd109006)

Alright. People have been complaining about me starting too many gay threads so.... I decided to start this one.  :cool:

I am going to post gay news here (rather than starting a new thread every time I want to post something), in the similar vein as Tamas has a Hungary politics thread.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:21:18 AM
tagging threads "gay" & "straight" now? :bleeding:

Quote from: Caliga on June 19, 2009, 05:16:24 AM
I like the idea of a [Gay] tag.  :)

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 06:29:54 AM
LOL did the Warsaw Pride have: impact?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:00:22 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 06:29:54 AM
LOL did the Warsaw Pride have: impact?

You know I kind of doubt it. I get the impression that a lot of things do have impact, but that Pride parades tend to be seen as obnoxious and/or only have positive impact on those already sympathetic. The things that really reach out to change minds IMO are the ones that make it seem like gays are just a normal segment of the population composed of regular people. Which really is the case, right?

People dancing around like Tim Curry in stockings and a boa acting weird makes it seem like these are alien people that can't be understood. The common human first reaction to "outsiders". And in some cases the parade participants really do some things that are meant to be provocative but only translate into offensiveness to the people who ought to be the ones being provoked (into rethinking their ideas, I mean). For those already sympathetic but not part of the celebration, it's a curiosity, it's interesting, but it doesn't really affect opinion.

As a strategy, I think the way Pride parades are generally done is a mistake. Too militant.

Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Agreed, I don't really think pride parades are put on to win hearts. I think they are generally seen as celebrations for the participants, affirming their existence and giving them a chance to celebrate their openness. The ultimate celebration of a transition from fearful, closeted child to showy glitter queen waltzing down main street.

Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Agreed, I don't really think pride parades are put on to win hearts. I think they are generally seen as celebrations for the participants, affirming their existence and giving them a chance to celebrate their openness. The ultimate celebration of a transition from fearful, closeted child to showy glitter queen waltzing down main street.

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

Quote from: Zanza2 on June 19, 2009, 02:51:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

That's really all one can reasonably expect from a Catholic bishop. After all, they would compromise their dogma otherwise.

Sounds like a good development for Poland. :)

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 08:10:41 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

If I was in his shoes I would do the same thing.  Establishing Civil Unions is really the only way they can stop gays getting marriage in the long term.  All conservatives with half a brain would work towards them.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 11:21:18 AM
tagging threads "gay" & "straight" now? :bleeding:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:12:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Agreed, I don't really think pride parades are put on to win hearts. I think they are generally seen as celebrations for the participants, affirming their existence and giving them a chance to celebrate their openness. The ultimate celebration of a transition from fearful, closeted child to showy glitter queen waltzing down main street.

Yes exactly. They are for the participants, not for everyone else.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on June 19, 2009, 07:11:45 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 19, 2009, 02:12:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 19, 2009, 02:09:14 PM
Agreed, I don't really think pride parades are put on to win hearts. I think they are generally seen as celebrations for the participants, affirming their existence and giving them a chance to celebrate their openness. The ultimate celebration of a transition from fearful, closeted child to showy glitter queen waltzing down main street.

Yes exactly. They are for the participants, not for everyone else.

It's just a parade. Don't go, if you don't feel like seeing it.  I see it as just another parade, like the Santa Claus parade mixed with a Dyke March(tm)

Quote from: Barrister on June 19, 2009, 04:03:45 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 19, 2009, 08:10:41 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2009, 07:15:43 AM
Well, the Archbishop was talking more along the lines of "I don't oppose" than "I support" but it's still quite a big thing, considering it's Poland and the Catholic church. Precisely he said that:

"If that is not going to lead to [full marriage] then it is a thing to consider. If this would facilitate such things as [inheritance, or joint taxation], then I would be open to this. As long as it does not enter the area of values, such as broadening the definition of marriage, then I do not oppose such things."

If I was in his shoes I would do the same thing.  Establishing Civil Unions is really the only way they can stop gays getting marriage in the long term.  All conservatives with half a brain would work towards them.

I support civil unions (although the horse is out of the barn in this country)... :unsureL

Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 08:40:27 AM
Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2009, 08:45:11 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 08:40:27 AM
Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Um...I am for full gay marriage but I am a bit annoyed by bringing up the 'separate but equal' thing in this context.  Are you implying we are not going to fund civil unions the same way we didn't fund black education?  That we are going to some how segregate gay people from straight people?  Because I don't really see how calling it a different name for an equal thing is anything more than a political trick not some way to keep gay people separate than straight people or keep them down.

So how the fuck would it keep anything 'separate' which in the sense that phrase was used referred to racial segregation?  You not being able to marry sucks but don't compare it to Jim Crow for godsake.  Hyperbole anyone?

QuoteJune 22, 2009
Gay Kiss Boosts Soap's Ratings
By Julie Bolcer

A kiss between two male characters helped the British soap opera EastEnders bubble to the top of its slot on Friday evening, drawing an estimated 7.9 million viewers on BBC 1.

The controversial kiss is part of a new story line for the long-running soap in which Syed Masood, a Muslim played by Marc Elliot, struggles with his sexuality and faith. During Friday's episode, Masood kissed openly gay character Christian Clarke, played by John Partridge.

According to unofficial figures reported in The Guardian, the kiss on Friday propelled EastEnders to an average of 7.6 million viewers and a 38% percent share between 8 and 8:30 p.m. The number of viewers peaked at 7.9 million in the final 15 minutes of the episode, when the kiss took place.

Last month, when the plotline was revealed, Muslim leaders attacked the direction.

"There's a lack of understanding of Muslims already and I think EastEnders really lost an opportunity to present a normal friendly Muslim character to the British public," Asghar Bokhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee told the BBC.

Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2009, 07:20:19 AM
This *is* a normal friendly Muslim character, you towelhead moonworshipping retard. Seriously, is this the "moderate Muslim" movement that is supposed to exist in the UK, at least according to Gupta?

Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2009, 08:07:32 AM
Hey, you haven't answered my post about "separate but equal". Does it mean you agree with my reasoning? :P

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2009, 08:25:27 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2009, 08:07:32 AM
Hey, you haven't answered my post about "separate but equal". Does it mean you agree with my reasoning? :P

What you said was theoretically possible but I have a hard time believing once the community agrees to Civil Unions there is really going to be a majority out to persecute gays and make CUs weaker over time.  Rather I believe it would lead directly to marriage and acceptance, like it did in Vermont.

I still have a hard time using the language of civil rights, slavery, Jim Crow, racial segregation and all that enter into this.

Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2009, 08:27:49 AM
Well, it's not like the situation is going to be the same, everywhere, especially in a country as diverse as the US.

Only because people agree to something at a federal or a state level, does not mean that in every single jurisdiction within the US (or every single company or municipality etc.) the majority will be against discrimination.

Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 08:40:27 AM
Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Quote from: Neil on June 23, 2009, 08:44:38 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 22, 2009, 08:40:27 AM
Yeah, civil unions might be an important step towards equality, but ultimately it is a "separate but equal" measure. Anyone who agrees to it, but not to full marriage equality, must be aware of this dishonesty.

Gays already have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as everyone else.  They do not have the right to marry someone of the same sex, a toaster, an animal, a colour or an anime character, same as everyone else.

Homosexuality should be abolished, for the good of all mankind.

Quote from: Martinus on June 23, 2009, 08:27:49 AM


Well, it's not like the situation is going to be the same, everywhere, especially in a country as diverse as the US.

Only because people agree to something at a federal or a state level, does not mean that in every single jurisdiction within the US (or every single company or municipality etc.) the majority will be against discrimination.

Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 11:03:49 AM
Ok, so more bizarro news from Poland.

The Polish public TV is currently in the hands of a CEO who got there as a nationalist/extreme right-wing/antisemitic/homophobic apparatchik (long story - has to do with the old PiS government, and their minor League of Polish Families coalition partner, who later got into the public TV and ousted PiS appointees and now cannot be recalled until his mandate expires).

So, when yesterday I heard about the Polish GLAAD equivalent protesting about the public TV offering the new spouse and non-married-partner health insurance coverage only to employees in opposite sex relationships I was like "Gee, not much of a surprise."  :rolleyes:

So, today they issue a press release saying they are very sorry, that this was an omission because of the standard wording of the insurance agreement, and it is now being fixed, and they will offer the coverage to same sex partners of employees.

Wtf.  :huh:

Quote
     BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) - A Connecticut church has outraged gay rights advocates by posting a video of members performing an apparent exorcism of a teen's "homosexual demons."

The 20-minute video was posted on YouTube before it was taken down.

Gay youth advocate Robin McHaelen (mih-KAY'-lehn) says the video appears to show abuse. She says she plans to report it to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families.

The boy confirms he is 16 but otherwise has declined to comment.

The Rev. Patricia McKinney of Manifested Glory Ministries in Bridgeport says he is 18 and came to the church on his own seeking help.

She denies the church is prejudiced and says it took care of the youth.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2009, 02:30:41 PM

Quote

She denies the church is prejudiced and says it took care of the youth.

QuoteShe denies the church is prejudiced

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2009, 02:30:41 PM

Quote
     BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) - A Connecticut church has outraged gay rights advocates by posting a video of members performing an apparent exorcism of a teen's "homosexual demons."

The 20-minute video was posted on YouTube before it was taken down.

Gay youth advocate Robin McHaelen (mih-KAY'-lehn) says the video appears to show abuse. She says she plans to report it to the Connecticut Department of Children and Families.

The boy confirms he is 16 but otherwise has declined to comment.

The Rev. Patricia McKinney of Manifested Glory Ministries in Bridgeport says he is 18 and came to the church on his own seeking help.

She denies the church is prejudiced and says it took care of the youth.

Bridgeport, Conn: Bible Belt.

Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 03:13:58 PM

QuoteShe denies the church is prejudiced

They love gay people.  They want to save them all from the demons of gayness.

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2009, 04:14:15 PM
I guess this is the best thread for this:

My brother works on an app that assigns an identification code to medical reports, based on semantics and a given dictionary of illnesses, procedures and such. This is useful for admin purposes (calculating costs, planning what to buy or who to hire next, etc).
Anyway, recently a panicked civil servant contacted them: they had discovered the dictionary (which had been supplied by them to my brother's team) listed homosexuality as an illness. And they wanted it gone before someone (the press!) found out! :lol:

Quote from: Iormlund on June 25, 2009, 04:14:15 PM
Anyway, recently a panicked civil servant contacted them: they had discovered the dictionary (which had been supplied by them to my brother's team) listed homosexuality as an illness.

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 02:36:01 PM
In other news: did you know that HIV positive foreigners right now cannot enter the US? Apparently, they are now moving to repeal that policy. Still it's a bit of a disgrace, isn't it?

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2009, 02:50:27 PM

[Jules] Took care of? [/Jules]

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 02:36:01 PM
In other news: did you know that HIV positive foreigners right now cannot enter the US? Apparently, they are now moving to repeal that policy. Still it's a bit of a disgrace, isn't it?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2009, 03:58:39 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 02:36:01 PM
In other news: did you know that HIV positive foreigners right now cannot enter the US? Apparently, they are now moving to repeal that policy. Still it's a bit of a disgrace, isn't it?

You're not suggesting this is a gay issue, are you?

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 04:02:12 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 28, 2009, 03:58:39 PM

Quote from: Martinus on June 28, 2009, 02:36:01 PM
In other news: did you know that HIV positive foreigners right now cannot enter the US? Apparently, they are now moving to repeal that policy. Still it's a bit of a disgrace, isn't it?

You're not suggesting this is a gay issue, are you?

For some reason, all gay news sites are reporting this, so why don't you take it with them?

QuoteJune 26, 2009
Poland Gets First Openly Gay Rabbi
By Julie Bolcer

The Associated Press profiles Aaron Katz, Poland's first openly gay rabbi, whose achievement has some Jews asking whether the country is ready for such a trailblazer.

Katz, 53, serves Beit Warszawa,  a Reform congregation in Warsaw. He lives in the capital city's historic Jewish district with Kevin Gleason, a former Hollywood producer with whom he entered into a domestic partnership in Los Angeles two years ago. The couple, who consider themselves married, moved to Warsaw in March.

Katz, who has opened his home to the community, said he has not faced discrimination or homophobia in Poland, an overwhelmingly Catholic country where leading politicians have publicly declared antigay views in recent years. However, some community members privately told the AP that they worried their community, its size decimated by the Holocaust, remained too "fragile" to sustain any potential controversy.

Born in Argentina to parents who fled the Holocaust in Poland, Katz has five children from a previous marriage to a woman when he was an Orthodox rabbi in Sweden.

QuoteKatz has five children from a previous marriage to a woman when he was an Orthodox rabbi in Sweden.

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2009, 08:41:07 AM
:Joos

QuoteKatz has five children from a previous marriage to a woman when he was an Orthodox rabbi in Sweden.

I am glad you don't hold his breeding against him Marty.

QuoteObama reaffirms support for gay-rights activism
By LIZ SIDOTI – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Countering criticism that he's done little on gay rights, President Barack Obama commemorated the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern movement by welcoming its leaders to the White House and reaffirming his commitment to their top priorities.
"I want you to know: You have our support," Obama told members of the core Democratic constituency as he and first lady Michelle Obama hosted a cocktail-and-appetizer reception in the East Room for gay pride month. It's been some four decades since the police raid on New York City's gay Stonewall Inn that spurred gay rights activism across the country.
As activists work to change minds and change laws, Obama added: "I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a president who fights with you and for you."
Since Obama took office in January, some activists have complained that Obama has not followed through on his campaign promises on issues they hold dear and has not championed their causes from the White House, including ending the ban on gays in the military.
Obama pleaded for patience.
"I know many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough. And I understand that," Obama said. But he added: "I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by promises that my administration keeps."
By the time he leaves office, the president said, "I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration."
The crowd erupted in cheers.
He noted that he has issued a presidential memorandum expanding some federal benefits to same-sex partners. Critics have noted that it doesn't include health benefits or pension guarantees.
Obama also reminded the audience that he has called on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. Still, he added: "We have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate existing divides."
He said that does not mean he doesn't back a repeal of the law.
Obama also said the administration is working to pass an employee nondiscrimination bill and a hate crimes bill that includes protections for gays and lesbian, and he said it's committed to rescinding a ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status.
Obama reiterated his support for repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. He said he doesn't believe the policy makes the United State more secure, and he said his administration is working with Congress to develop a plan that will end the practice legislatively in a way that ensures the new policy works in the long term.

Quote from: Martinus on July 01, 2009, 01:04:23 AM

So, Languish 'mos, what do you think? A genuine commitment for change or is this just a honeymoon period starting again? :P 

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 01, 2009, 01:45:44 AM
LOL nice graphic. Frankly, I don't see anything significant happening on DADT soon. So, I guess I vote honeymoon, unfortunately.

QuoteJuly 01, 2009
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced.

"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said.

Gates made his comment the same day that a military administrative board recommended that a National Guard officer and combat veteran who publicly announced he's gay should be discharged for violating the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Lt. Dan Choi would be the first New York National Guard member discharged for violating the policy against homosexual conduct, said Lt. Col. Paul Fanning, a spokesman for the New York Army National Guard.

Gates, a holdover from the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush, told reporters traveling with him in Europe that the Clinton-era ban was written without much wiggle room. The Pentagon general counsel is looking at potential avenues around full enforcement as a stopgap, Gates said.

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at, to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed," Gates said, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.

But even that kind of change would not help Choi, who revealed himself to be gay during an interview on a nationally televised news program.

Choi said discharging him for being gay amounted to firing him "for nothing more than telling the truth about who I am."

Choi, 28, appeared in Syracuse before a Federal Recognition Board, a panel of four military officers, which deliberated four hours before deciding to recommend the Army no longer recognize him as an officer -- effectively discharging him.

The recommendation must be approved by the First Army commander and the chief of the National Guard Bureau before Choi is discharged, a process that could take anywhere from a few weeks to a year, said Maj. Roy Diehl, who represented Choi. Until then, Choi remains an active member of the National Guard, he said.

"It's a recommendation, not a completed act," Diehl said, adding he hoped military commanders would reconsider Choi's value as a soldier. Choi is a West Point graduate who majored in Arabic and environmental engineering. He served in Iraq with the 10th Mountain Division for 15 months in 2006 and 2007, leading combat patrols through a region called the Triangle of Death and serving as a translator and language instructor. He also helped rebuild schools and hospitals.

In 2008, he left the Army and joined the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry of the New York National Guard, based in Manhattan.

Choi likely will receive an honorable or a general discharge and could lose some of his veteran educational benefits, Diehl said.

"They are taking effective troops ... and kicking them out, removing them from the force just as effectively as if al-Qaida was blowing them up," said Diehl, who claimed the military is more tolerant of drug abusers, malcontents and adulterers.

Gay rights activists and others have criticized the Obama administration for not quickly following through on a pledge to lift the ban on openly gay military service.

President Barack Obama and his spokesmen say he remains committed to repealing "don't ask, don't tell," but neither the White House nor congressional leadership has moved swiftly to do so.

There is no timetable for the pending bill to repeal the 1993 law, which was intended as a compromise to get around a full ban on gay military service. Gay rights leaders, however, have said it is an insult.

Obama says he wants to build support for the change among military commanders before urging Congress to move ahead.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and others have cautioned that repeal of the law must be done carefully so as not to disrupt military cohesion in wartime or to place an additional burden on an already overstretched uniformed force.

Gates said he discussed repeal of the no-gays policy with Obama last week, but he did not detail the conversation.

"We were talking about how do we move forward on this to achieve his objective, which is changing the policy, and the issue that we face is that how do we begin to do preparations and simultaneously the administration move forward in terms of asking the Congress to change the law," Gates said.

Several liberal legal experts and outside groups have urged Obama to issue an executive order that would make the law unenforceable, but Gates appeared to be considering measures short of that.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
personally I think people are over reacting a bit in the media over Obama's supposed cold shoulder. But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2009, 12:06:14 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
personally I think people are over reacting a bit in the media over Obama's supposed cold shoulder. But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

And amazingly despite having news 24/7 I do not feel particularly informed.  Most of the news shows are actually pundit shows where people advance whatever their particular partisan team is.

Meh.

Quote from: Neil on July 02, 2009, 12:07:49 PM
That's the second-largest type of news show.  The largest is, of course, celebrity news.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2009, 11:55:02 AM
The funny thing is conservative social types are freaking out about how Homo friendly Obama is.  He might as well support gays and at least get the credit for the thing he is being blamed for.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
...But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2009, 11:55:02 AM
The funny thing is conservative social types are freaking out about how Homo friendly Obama is.  He might as well support gays and at least get the credit for the thing he is being blamed for.

Quote from: Martinus on July 02, 2009, 12:37:08 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2009, 11:55:02 AM
The funny thing is conservative social types are freaking out about how Homo friendly Obama is.  He might as well support gays and at least get the credit for the thing he is being blamed for.

Well, conservatives are fucked up. The guy who died recently (the supply side economy guy about whom I started the "Burn in hell" thread - can't remember the name, since I found about him at queerty.com) apparently accused Reagan of being controlled by a "gay cabal", too.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
personally I think people are over reacting a bit in the media over Obama's supposed cold shoulder. But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
personally I think people are over reacting a bit in the media over Obama's supposed cold shoulder

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2009, 12:46:01 PM
[Well everyone was expecting a massive outpouring of change after placing all their hopes on Obama.  When that didn't happen, you get the inevitable fallout...especially when the Dems have been passing most of their other wet dreams. :)

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
personally I think people are over reacting a bit in the media over Obama's supposed cold shoulder. But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

Quote from: Faeelin on July 02, 2009, 12:58:33 PM
Waxman-Markley looks DOA,

Quote from: sbr on July 02, 2009, 01:12:09 PM
I agree.  Obama has been in office for what 180 days?  He has had some bigger fish to fry right off the bat -economy, N Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  If he finishes his term without addressing some of these gay issues then then there will be room to complain.

Quote from: sbr on July 02, 2009, 01:12:09 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
personally I think people are over reacting a bit in the media over Obama's supposed cold shoulder. But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

I agree.  Obama has been in office for what 180 days?  He has had some bigger fish to fry right off the bat -economy, N Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  If he finishes his term without addressing some of these gay issues then then there will be room to complain.

Quote from: Grallon on July 02, 2009, 12:37:55 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 02, 2009, 12:02:19 PM
...But then that's all the media does anymore is blow every single issue out there completely out of proportion. I blame 24/7 news cycles. The world was more interesting when you only got news a couple of times aday.

Are you surprised ?  Information has become a spectacle, or more precisely, an entertainment product.



G.

QuoteDavid Cameron apologises to gay people for section 28

Nicholas Watt
The Guardian,    Thursday 2 July 2009
Article history
David Cameron has embarked on another major step in the modernisation of the Conservative party by offering a public apology for section 28, the notorious legislation which banned the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools.

In a gesture hailed by gay rights campaigners as "historic", Cameron condemned section 28 as "offensive to gay people" and predicted that a Conservative would become Britain's first openly gay prime minister.

The Tory leader, who voted against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003, reached out to the gay community on Tuesday night at a Tory fundraising event linked to Gay Pride this weekend.

"Yes, we may have sometimes been slow and, yes, we may have made mistakes, including Section 28, but the change has happened," Cameron said of the repeal of the legislation originally passed in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.

In remarks reported by the Pink Paper, he admitted that he did not have a "perfect record" on gay rights, a reference to his decision in 2003 to vote for the retention of section 28. But he added: "It does give me great pride to be standing here to celebrate Gay Pride and all you have achieved.

"If five years ago we had a Conservative and Gay Pride party, I don't think many gay people would have come or many Conservatives would have come. In wanting to make the party representative of the country, I think we have made some real progress.

"If we do win the next election, instead of being a white middle class middle-aged party, we will be far more diverse. The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister."

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, described Cameron's speech as "historic". He said: "We have heard the leader of the Conservative party say the words 'section 28' and 'sorry'."

Cameron's apology shows how far the Tory party has moved in the past decade. Shaun Woodward, now Northern Ireland secretary, defected to Labour after he was sacked from the Tory frontbench by William Hague in 2000 for rebelling against the party's support for section 28.

Cameron, who succeeded Woodward as MP for Witney at the 2001 general election, mocked his opposition to section 28. "Did Mr Woodward order a survey of local opinion about the issue that triggered his resignation – clause 28 and the promotion of homosexuality in schools?" Cameron wrote in a letter to the Daily Telegraph in September 2000.

The future Tory leader voted to retain Section 28 in the 2003 Commons vote which led to its abolition. Cameron, whose wife Samantha has long opposed section 28, later admitted that this was a mistake.

In his first conference speech as Tory leader, three years later in 2006, Cameron showed how he had moved on in what he called a "journey". He said: "There's something special about marriage. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important ... You are making a commitment.

"And by the way, it means something whether you're a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That's why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I'm proud of that."

However as recently as last year, Cameron alarmed gay and lesbian campaigners by voting to restrict access for lesbian couples hoping to conceive children through in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

To the surprise of Tory modernisers he supported a Commons amendment by the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith that would have strengthened existing laws to make IVF clinics consider the "need for a father and a mother" before allowing women to begin fertility treatment. The amendment was defeated.

Quote
Court decriminalizes gay sex in Indian capital

By MUNEEZA NAQVI – 1 day ago

NEW DELHI (AP) — New Delhi's gay community celebrated a landmark court ruling Thursday that decriminalizes homosexuality — a decision that could end widespread police harassment and be a harbinger for gradual acceptance for homosexuals across this deeply conservative country.

The Delhi High Court ruled that treating consensual gay sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's constitution. The ruling, the first of its kind in India, is not binding outside New Delhi.

Hours after the ruling was issued dozens of members of New Delhi's gay community — some with rainbows painted on their faces and others holding signs that read "Queer and loving it" — gathered in the heart of the capital to celebrate.

"I'm so excited and I haven't been able to process the news yet," said Anjali Gopalan, the executive director of the Naz Foundation (India) Trust, the sexual health organization that filed the petition with the court.

"We've finally entered the 21st century."

But some religious leaders quickly criticized the ruling. "This Western culture cannot be permitted in our country," said Maulana Khalid Rashid Farangi Mahali, a leading Muslim cleric in the northern city of Lucknow.

Sex between people of the same gender has been illegal in India since a British colonial era law was issued in the 1860s classifying it as "against the order of nature." According to the law, gay sex is punishable by 10 years in prison.

While actual criminal prosecutions are few, the law frequently has been used to harass people. The court's verdict should protect New Delhi's gay community from criminal charges and police harassment.

"This legal remnant of British colonialism has been used to deprive people of their basic rights for too long," Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "This long-awaited decision testifies to the reach of democracy and rights in India."

The verdict came more than eight years after the New Delhi-based Naz Foundation filed its petition — not unusually long in India's notoriously clogged court system. The decision can still be challenged in India's Supreme Court.

The government has remained vague about its position on the law, and Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily said he would examine the high court's order before commenting.

"Our effort will be to try to see that the government does not appeal to the Supreme Court. There is a chance that others will go and appeal," Anand Grover, a member of a lawyers group involved in the case, said in Geneva.

While the ruling is not binding in India's other states, Tripti Tandon, a lawyer for the Naz Foundation, said she hoped it would have a "persuasive" effect on other courts.

Rights activists say the law, also popularly known as 377, or section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, sanctions discrimination and marginalizes the gay community. Health experts say the law discourages safe sex and has been a hurdle in fighting HIV and AIDS. Roughly 2.5 million Indians have HIV.

The U.N. agency UNAIDS welcomed the court ruling and said it would make it easier to reach homosexual men with programs to combat the spread of HIV.

Homosexuality is slowly gaining acceptance in some parts of India, especially in its big cities. Many bars have gay nights, and some high-profile Bollywood films have dealt with gay issues. The last two years have also seen large gay pride parades in New Delhi and other big cities such as Mumbai and Calcutta.

Still, being gay remains deeply taboo in most of the country, and a large number of homosexuals hide their sexual orientation from their friends and families.

Religious leaders in the capital and in other parts of India argue that gay sex should remain illegal and that open homosexuality is out of step with India's deeply held traditions.

"We are totally against such a practice as it is not our tradition or culture," said Puroshattam Narain Singh, an official of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Council.

In New Delhi, Rev. Babu Joseph, a spokesman of the Roman Catholic church, told New Delhi Television that while homosexuals should not be treated as criminals, "at the same time we cannot afford to endorse homosexual behavior as normal and socially acceptable."

Still, rights activists hope that Thursday's ruling will send a message to the entire country.

"The symbolic value of this judgment is unmatched," said Arvind Narrain, another lawyer involved with the case. "It says lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people are citizens with equal rights."

Associated Press Writers Biswajeet Banerjee in Lucknow, India and Alexander G. Higgins in Geneva contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Quote from: Grallon on July 02, 2009, 12:39:37 PM
When are american conservatives *not* freaking out about something or other?  We should speed them on their way to their god.  <_<

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 03, 2009, 12:11:02 PM
Gay sex decriminalized in Delhi. Only in one city? Does this mean that India's newest "ghetto" will have decent property values as all of India's gays move to Delhi?

Quotewell I think there would be more (in NA at least are Tories religious bigots in UK?)  queer conservatives if conservatives these days were the old school fiscal conservatives of yore as opposed to the self righteous skygod worshipers they are now.

QuoteJuly 10, 2009
Marriage Equality Reverend Under Fire

A 50-year-old civil rights organization founded by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is seeking to oust the president of its Los Angeles chapter over his support of marriage equality in California, reports The New York Times.

The Atlanta-based Southern Christian Leadership Conference has threatened to remove the Reverend Eric Lee, who actively worked to prevent the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.

Lee told the Times that his work against Prop. 8 created tension with black clergy, but said he believes that banning same-sex marriage "is a clear violation of civil rights and I have to speak up on that."

In May, Lee received a call and two subsequent letters from the national board of directors of his organization threatening him with suspension or removal. The organization has a publicly neutral stance on the issue.

The local board of directors, who confirmed Lee knowing his stance on marriage equality, stand behind the reverend and his actions.

Lee says he sees failures in the leadership of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; he told the Times, "Dr. King would be turning over in his grave right now."

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:25:11 AM
Dr King turning, spinning in his grave.

Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2009, 09:41:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:25:11 AM
Dr King turning, spinning in his grave.

Why?  King was black and Christian, and thus likely hated fags as well.

Quote from: Neil on July 11, 2009, 09:41:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 04:25:11 AM
Dr King turning, spinning in his grave.

Why?  King was black and Christian, and thus likely hated fags as well.

QuoteThere are opposing views even within the King family — regarding the slain civil rights leader's religious and political views about homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. King's widow Coretta said publicly that she believed her husband would have supported gay rights. However, his daughter Bernice believed he would have been opposed to them.[178] The King Center includes discrimination, and lists homophobia as one of its examples, in its list of "The Triple Evils" that should be opposed.[179]

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 10:34:45 AM
Coretta King was a very vocal opponent of anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. She has lent her support to several gay rights rallies and also campaigned in anti-HIV advocacy groups. I think her views are more representative of the (hypothetical) views of Dr King than those of their daughter.

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 10:34:45 AM
Coretta King was a very vocal opponent of anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. She has lent her support to several gay rights rallies and also campaigned in anti-HIV advocacy groups. I think her views are more representative of the (hypothetical) views of Dr King than those of their daughter.

Quote
Gay couple detained near Mormon plaza after kiss
AP

By ELIZABETH WHITE, Associated Press Writer Elizabeth White, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jul 10, 11:37 pm ET

SALT LAKE CITY – A gay couple say they were detained by security guards on a plaza owned by the Mormon church and later cited by police, claiming it stemmed from a kiss on the cheek.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that the men became argumentative and refused to leave after being asked to stop their "inappropriate behavior." The men say they were targeted because they are gay.

Matt Aune said he and his partner, Derek Jones, were walking home from a concert nearby on Thursday night, cutting through the plaza near the Salt Lake City Mormon temple.

Aune, 28, said he gave Jones, 25, a hug and kiss and that the two were then approached by a security guard, who asked them to leave, telling them they were being inappropriate and that public displays of affection aren't allowed on the property. He said other guards arrived and the men were handcuffed.

"We asked what we were doing wrong," Aune told The Associated Press.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement Friday that the men were "politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been."

"They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property," she said. The church did not immediately respond to a request for more comment.

Police later arrived and both men were cited with misdemeanor trespassing, Salt Lake City Police Sgt. Robin Snyder said.

"It doesn't matter what they were asked to leave for," Snyder said. "If they are asked to leave and don't they are ... trespassing."

The church has been the target of protests over its support of a ban on gay marriage in California.

Quote from: Martinus on July 12, 2009, 09:52:31 AM
I hope they sue the Mormon church.

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 10:34:45 AM
Coretta King was a very vocal opponent of anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. She has lent her support to several gay rights rallies and also campaigned in anti-HIV advocacy groups. I think her views are more representative of the (hypothetical) views of Dr King than those of their daughter.

QuoteThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that the men became argumentative and refused to leave after being asked to stop their "inappropriate behavior." The men say they were targeted because they are gay.

QuoteKiss In Held to Protest LDS Church
By Julie Bolcer

Dozens of gay couples held a kiss in at Temple Square in Salt Lake City on Sunday to protest the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for detaining a gay couple who kissed on church property, reports KTSU-TV in the following video.

During the incident, first reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, Matt Aune and Derek Jones say that LDS church security detained them on Thursday and Salt Lake City police cited them for trespassing after they kissed on the check on Main Street Plaza. The property was sold to the Church by the city in the late 90s, although many couples continue to pose affectionately for photos on the space.

Aune, 28, and Jones, 25, told the newspaper that they were walking back to their nearby home in the evening when they crossed the plaza holding hands, then stopped to kiss on the cheek. Several security guards arrived and told the couple that public displays of affection are not allowed on church property.

When Aune and Jones protested, they were handcuffed, and police were called. Aune and Jones were banned from LDS Church headquarters campus for six months.

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the LDS Church, provided a written statement to the Salt Lake Tribune saying that the detainment had nothing to do with Aune and Jones being gay.

Aune and Jones were "asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior just as any other couple would have been. They became argumentative and used profanity and refused to leave the property. They were arrested and then given a citation for criminal trespass by SLPD," said the LDS Church.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 03, 2009, 12:02:12 PM
well I think there would be more (in NA at least are Tories religious bigots in UK?)  queer conservatives if conservatives these days were the old school fiscal conservatives of yore as opposed to the self righteous skygod worshipers they are now.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2009, 10:42:28 AM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 03, 2009, 12:02:12 PM
well I think there would be more (in NA at least are Tories religious bigots in UK?)  queer conservatives if conservatives these days were the old school fiscal conservatives of yore as opposed to the self righteous skygod worshipers they are now.

To be fair to the Tories two members of the shadow cabinet are gay (and civilly unioned).  Both are also fiercely incompetent, blundering and have rumours of a bit of expense sleaze about them.  They've more top gay politicians than Labour or Lib Dems.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2009, 10:42:28 AM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 03, 2009, 12:02:12 PM
well I think there would be more (in NA at least are Tories religious bigots in UK?)  queer conservatives if conservatives these days were the old school fiscal conservatives of yore as opposed to the self righteous skygod worshipers they are now.

To be fair to the Tories two members of the shadow cabinet are gay (and civilly unioned).  Both are also fiercely incompetent, blundering and have rumours of a bit of expense sleaze about them.  They've more top gay politicians than Labour or Lib Dems.

Quote from: Martinus on July 13, 2009, 06:41:31 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 13, 2009, 10:42:28 AM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 03, 2009, 12:02:12 PM
well I think there would be more (in NA at least are Tories religious bigots in UK?)  queer conservatives if conservatives these days were the old school fiscal conservatives of yore as opposed to the self righteous skygod worshipers they are now.

To be fair to the Tories two members of the shadow cabinet are gay (and civilly unioned).  Both are also fiercely incompetent, blundering and have rumours of a bit of expense sleaze about them.  They've more top gay politicians than Labour or Lib Dems.

Noone can rival the Gay Sith Master: Lord Mandelson. :ph34r:

Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2009, 09:33:59 PM

Quote from: Martinus on July 11, 2009, 10:34:45 AM
Coretta King was a very vocal opponent of anti-gay discrimination and homophobia. She has lent her support to several gay rights rallies and also campaigned in anti-HIV advocacy groups. I think her views are more representative of the (hypothetical) views of Dr King than those of their daughter.

He certainly was a big supporter of Bayard Rustin for somebody who didn't like homosexuals.

QuoteThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that the men became argumentative and refused to leave after being asked to stop their "inappropriate behavior." The men say they were targeted because they are gay.

You think?  The Mormons are a bunch of hateful assholes anyway.  I predict that at some point in the future they will back track on the gay thing just like they did with the racist thing. if it ever becomes embarrasing.  The Mormon God changes his mind alot.

QuoteSAN FRANCISCO  — Someone alert Perez Hilton: Harry and Pepper, the San Francisco Zoo's long-term same-sex penguin couple, have split up. And you might say there's a disreputable dame to blame.

The couple's relationship began in 2003 and the breakup came as a shock to the couple's zookeepers because Harry and Pepper, both Magellanic penguins, had long seemed one of the zoo's happiest avian partnerships, according to zookeeper Anthony Brown.

The two black-and-white birds paired off when Harry, whom Brown described as outgoing, befriended Pepper, an introvert who sticks mostly to his burrow. At the time, the two were adolescents and everyone assumed they were just friends.

But soon they were nesting together. Harry would gather grass and bring it home to Pepper, who would arrange it tidily in their burrow, Brown said. Single females would come around, but both birds never seemed interested.

Last year, the pair was allowed to incubate and hatch an egg another penguin had laid.

"Of all of the parents that year, they were the best," Brown said. "They took very good care of their chick. He ended up being the largest chick on the island."

One could say that all seemed to be going swimmingly with Harry and Pepper.

Enter the recently widowed Linda, who has long had a reputation of sorts, according to Brown.

Several years ago, she left her longtime companion and moved in with much older Fig just hours after Fig's partner passed away, Brown said.

"That was the fastest we'd ever seen penguins move on," he said. "To be completely anthropomorphizing, Linda seems conniving. She's got her plan. I don't think she was wanting to be a single girl for too long."

This year, within weeks of Fig passing away in winter, Harry was seen in Fig's old burrow spending time with Linda, Brown said.

Then one day, Harry and Linda approached Pepper's pen and confronted Pepper. Harry began attacking Pepper violently and the three ultimately had to be separated, Brown said.

Harry and Linda successfully nested this year and eventually Pepper was returned to the penguin exhibit from a bachelor pad at the Avian Conservation Center, where he quietly took up his old residence. Zookeepers and fans are waiting with bated breath to see what might happen next.

"That's the big question," Brown said. "It's molting season in late July and early August, and around that time we see couples getting shaken up. It'll be interesting to see if Harry spends any of that time with Pepper. We'll have to wait and see."

Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 14, 2009, 09:05:04 AM
harry and pepper broke up  :(

Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 09:27:18 AM
OMG, gay can be cured by WOMEN!

Quote from: Martinus on July 14, 2009, 09:30:10 AM
Fucking bisexuals.  <_<

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 14, 2009, 12:02:47 PM
Bah. Used to be all gays were Bi-sexual. (married, breeding for King and Country, fucking who they want on the side. Fags ruined it for the rest of us.)

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 14, 2009, 12:02:47 PM
Bah. Used to be all gays were Bi-sexual. (married, breeding for King and Country, fucking who they want on the side. Fags ruined it for the rest of us.)

Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 12:21:32 PM
And they were horrible people, subjecting poor women to their unclean habits.

QuoteFort Worth mayor apologizes for raid on gay bar
By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
July 14, 2009, 11:38PM

FORT WORTH, Texas — Mayor Mike Moncrief apologized for a raid on a gay bar that sparked claims of brutality and procedure violations after several members of a gay rights group were escorted out of a City Council meeting Tuesday.
About 250 people packed council chambers and another 150 watched on televisions in the hallway or overflow rooms as officials briefly discussed the June 28 joint raid by the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission and the Fort Worth Police Department at the Rainbow Lounge, which left one man hospitalized with a serious head injury.

Moncrief told the meeting neither the TABC nor police had finished investigations into the raid, which initially had been called a routine license inspection. But the mayor said he has asked the U.S. Attorney's Office to review the department's findings.

Someone in the audience then called out for an apology.

"If you want an apology from the mayor of Fort Worth: I am sorry about what happened in Fort Worth," Moncrief said, as the crowd erupted in applause and stood.

Seven members of a gay rights group were escorted out of the building earlier after demanding council members let them immediately comment on the raid.

Two council members had called for independent investigations into the raid, after which Moncrief started to discuss other items on the meeting agenda. Blake Wilkinson, founder of Queer LiberAction, interrupted and said those who wanted to comment on the raid shouldn't have to wait. Moncrief tried to explain that public comments are always last on the agenda.

Wilkinson and another person kept arguing with the mayor, and several people in the hallway started shouting, "Hear us now!" "Hear us now!" Wilkinson and six others were then led out of the building.

But Moncrief changed his mind nearly three hours later and allowed people to speak about the Rainbow Lounge issue after the council had addressed only a few of the numerous agenda items.

Tom Anable told the meeting that on the night of the raid he saw an agent slam one man into a pool table after the man said he was drinking water and shouldn't be arrested.

Anable said he also saw a TABC agent slam Chad Gibson, 26, into a wall. But Anable said Gibson — who later was hospitalized with a serious head injury — never groped the agent, as police have alleged.

"I fled in fear," Anable said.

Sarah Bryant fought back tears as she said she had seen fights at bars before, but that night at Rainbow Lounge "was the first time that I was really afraid of the police." Kevin Crook said the incident had created such widespread negative publicity that it paints the city as "one remaining bastion of discrimination."

Councilman Sal Espino said the incident has led to a "crisis" in the community, "but we can overcome that."
Earlier Tuesday, Police Chief Jeff Halstead said he had appointed Officer Sara Straten as a liaison to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

Straten said her main goal is to improve communication. She said she would meet with residents to "try to make things better" but did not say if she would lead diversity and cultural training for officers, an initiative Halstead has said the department would start.

"It's a huge job, but it's doable," Straten said of her new position.

QuoteMayor Mike Moncrief apologized for a raid on a gay bar that sparked claims of brutality and procedure violations after several members of a gay rights group were escorted out of a City Council meeting Tuesday

Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 12:21:32 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 14, 2009, 12:02:47 PM
Bah. Used to be all gays were Bi-sexual. (married, breeding for King and Country, fucking who they want on the side. Fags ruined it for the rest of us.)

And they were horrible people, subjecting poor women to their unclean habits.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 15, 2009, 12:24:50 PM
Really? ALL of them. Interesting. :rolleyes:

there are many such jerks of all sexual orientations. Not some exclusive Bi thing.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on July 15, 2009, 12:24:50 PM
Really? ALL of them. Interesting. :rolleyes:

there are many such jerks of all sexual orientations. Not some exclusive Bi thing.

Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2009, 12:36:40 PM
Oh I thought that was a 'boys are gross' thing in general.

QuoteJuly 16, 2009
Reason for Texas Bar Raid Revealed
By Julie Bolcer

Police records indicate that the raid on a gay bar in Fort Worth on June 28 was prompted by a man's arrest for public intoxication two days earlier, according to WFAA-TV.

Video from a cruiser shows the man being arrested after officers saw him leaving the Rainbow Lounge very intoxicated earlier in the evening. Later that weekend, Fort Worth police officer and agents from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission returned to the establishment for what they called a routine bar check.

In addition, police recordings reveal that on the night of the raid, an officer called for help after he went inside the Rainbow Lounge. His call was prompted by a bar patron who blew a kiss at the officer.

One bar patron, Chad Gibson, received a serious head injury and was hospitalized because of the raid. LGBT activists are calling for an independent investigation.

QuoteACLU backs religious hate group
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 7/15/2009 5:30:00 AM

An organization that supports American troops and their families is appalled that the American Civil Liberties Union has joined the controversial Westboro Baptist Church in challenging a Missouri community's ordinance that limits the access of funeral protesters.

Last week, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Maplewood, claiming that its ordinance restricting access to military funerals is unconstitutional. The suit is part of a broader effort by the ACLU to go after state and local laws that have been enacted in order to deal with the activities of Fred Phelps and his followers who began protesting at funerals of homosexuals but then expanded those protests to soldiers' funerals, carrying signs such as "Thank God for dead soldiers."

Westboro members believe that America is being punished with the deaths of soldiers and others for its "tolerance" of homosexuality. Merrilee Carlson, president of Families United For Our Troops and Their Mission, says these ordinances are quite reasonable.

"They have created laws in order to put a protective corridor around the families at the time of their funeral," she explains. "And what this corridor does not do is take away the freedom of speech of these people in order to say the things that they do."

Carlson says it is amazing that the ACLU would come to the aid of a group that preaches hate.

"The ACLU has jumped on the bandwagon with these people who viciously go to these funerals and protest and say horrible things to these families," she adds. "And they are supporting these people who say that they have absolutely the right to stand right in front of these people and inflict this harm."

Free-speech rights must come with responsibility, Carlson concludes.

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2009, 07:42:02 AM
I am not really sure how I feel about this.  Why are such ordinances necessary?  Surely they can use current laws to keep these freaks from tresspasing on private property (or military property if these funerals are being held in a military cemetary of some sort) without having to pass these questionable ordinances.

After all nothing is stopping people from counter-demonstrating the freaks like we do the KKK and Nazis and so forth.

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2009, 07:42:02 AM
I am not really sure how I feel about this.  Why are such ordinances necessary?  Surely they can use current laws to keep these freaks from tresspasing on private property (or military property if these funerals are being held in a military cemetary of some sort) without having to pass these questionable ordinances.

After all nothing is stopping people from counter-demonstrating the freaks like we do the KKK and Nazis and so forth.

Quote from: citizen k on July 17, 2009, 08:03:26 AM
Aren't patriotic biker groups already escorting the funerals and shielding the mourners/counterdemonstrating?

Quote from: citizen k on July 17, 2009, 08:03:26 AM

Quote from: Valmy on July 17, 2009, 07:42:02 AM
I am not really sure how I feel about this.  Why are such ordinances necessary?  Surely they can use current laws to keep these freaks from tresspasing on private property (or military property if these funerals are being held in a military cemetary of some sort) without having to pass these questionable ordinances.

After all nothing is stopping people from counter-demonstrating the freaks like we do the KKK and Nazis and so forth.

Aren't patriotic biker groups already escorting the funerals and shielding the mourners/counterdemonstrating?

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2009, 08:21:21 AM
Who do they protest against then?  Fags or 'Hell's Angels'?

• Ex-gay therapy does not work according to APA
• Such therapies can lead to suicidal tendancies, depression, impotence, other types of disorders and even worst ;) : most participants quit early on.
• At best, participants have learned to ignore their homosexual tendancies and abstain from sex, but not studies says how long it lasted.

Quote from: viper37 on August 06, 2009, 07:02:06 PM
Even more opportunities for religious fundies in airport now. 
Marty & Grallon are gonna be happy:  Homosexuality can not be cured.

Article (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/vivre/societe-et-sexualite/200908/06/01-890339-homosexualite-des-psychologues-contre-la-therapie-reparatrice.php)
Highlights:

• Ex-gay therapy does not work according to APA
• Such therapies can lead to suicidal tendancies, depression, impotence, other types of disorders and even worst ;) : most participants quit early on.
• At best, participants have learned to ignore their homosexual tendancies and abstain from sex, but not studies says how long it lasted.

I'm really, really surprised you can't change genetically induced behavior...  ;)


EDIT:
Some english text about it on a gay site:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13587.html (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13587.html)

Quote from: viper37 on August 06, 2009, 07:02:06 PM
Such therapies can lead to suicidal tendancies, depression, impotence, other types of disorders and even worst ;) :

Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2009, 07:18:50 PM
IMO, Marty & Grallon would be pissed that the APA is no longer insisting that psychiatrists push gay head-cases to embrace their homosexuality, and is being flexible enough to allow that some people may genuinely want to curtail gay feelings/impulses because it impedes on things like church, family, etc. that are more important to them.

Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2009, 07:18:50 PM
and is being flexible enough to allow that some people may genuinely want to curtail gay feelings/impulses because it impedes on things like church, family, etc. that are more important to them.

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2009, 09:43:28 PM
I find it rather pathetic that being gay really impedes those things but then I don't go to a false church and don't have a shitty family unlike those people.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 06, 2009, 09:50:05 PM
Aren't you Catholic?

Quote from: Valmy on August 06, 2009, 09:43:28 PM
I find it rather pathetic that being gay really impedes those things but then I don't go to a false church and don't have a shitty family unlike those people.

Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2009, 11:46:58 PM
Then that's your problem :D

Quote from: derspiess on August 06, 2009, 07:18:50 PM

Quote from: viper37 on August 06, 2009, 07:02:06 PM
Even more opportunities for religious fundies in airport now. 
Marty & Grallon are gonna be happy:  Homosexuality can not be cured.

Article (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/vivre/societe-et-sexualite/200908/06/01-890339-homosexualite-des-psychologues-contre-la-therapie-reparatrice.php)
Highlights:

• Ex-gay therapy does not work according to APA
• Such therapies can lead to suicidal tendancies, depression, impotence, other types of disorders and even worst ;) : most participants quit early on.
• At best, participants have learned to ignore their homosexual tendancies and abstain from sex, but not studies says how long it lasted.

I'm really, really surprised you can't change genetically induced behavior...  ;)


EDIT:
Some english text about it on a gay site:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13587.html (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13587.html)

Interesting take on it.  IMO, Marty & Grallon would be pissed that the APA is no longer insisting that psychiatrists push gay head-cases to embrace their homosexuality, and is being flexible enough to allow that some people may genuinely want to curtail gay feelings/impulses because it impedes on things like church, family, etc. that are more important to them.

Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
And for the record, in case you misunderstood what they are saying, if you ignore your gay feelings, it doesn't mean you will create some sort of heterosexual feelings as a result. So yeah, if people want to live in a forced celibacy, despite being sexually non-apathetic, it's their choice. You can also live without ever taking a shower or reading a book.

QuoteFortunately, while many gay and lesbian people who are raised in fundamentalist homes go through a period of denial and forced celibacy, most eventually abandon their retarded creeds and find happiness instead. Those who don't, go on to become catholic priests.

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 10:04:43 AM
Doesn't occur to you that some folks might actually value their family or church over sex, and therefore be happier not living a gay lifestyle in spite of what sexual inclinations they might have?

Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 11:15:59 AM
I noticed in the gay psych thread on p'dox that there are a lot of gays there. They should come here!

Quote from: Faeelin on August 07, 2009, 11:41:13 AM
Nah, invite the Catholics. Fahdiz will suck the heart and soul out of their faith in two weeks.

Quote from: garbon on August 06, 2009, 08:04:50 PM
@Viper - Yeah I made a thread on this.

Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 11:46:45 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on August 07, 2009, 11:41:13 AM
Nah, invite the Catholics. Fahdiz will suck the heart and soul out of their faith in two weeks.

<_<

I think we could benefit from some new gay voices (Marty's is rather stale).

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 11:54:49 AM
Yeah, bring more lawyers & Swedes while you're at it, will ya?  :mellow:

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 11:54:49 AM
Yeah, bring more lawyers & Swedes while you're at it, will ya?  :mellow:

Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2009, 08:53:38 AM
What APA is saying here, however, is that you can't be misinforming people, e.g. by claiming that you can "cure gay".

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 10:04:43 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
And for the record, in case you misunderstood what they are saying, if you ignore your gay feelings, it doesn't mean you will create some sort of heterosexual feelings as a result. So yeah, if people want to live in a forced celibacy, despite being sexually non-apathetic, it's their choice. You can also live without ever taking a shower or reading a book.

I like how you pretend it doesn't bother you & then you equate it with not bathing or being able to read :D

QuoteFortunately, while many gay and lesbian people who are raised in fundamentalist homes go through a period of denial and forced celibacy, most eventually abandon their retarded creeds and find happiness instead. Those who don't, go on to become catholic priests.

Doesn't occur to you that some folks might actually value their family or church over sex, and therefore be happier not living a gay lifestyle in spite of what sexual inclinations they might have?

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 11:54:49 AM
Yeah, bring more lawyers & Swedes while you're at it, will ya?  :mellow:

Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 11:15:59 AM
I noticed in the gay psych thread on p'dox that there are a lot of gays there. They should come here!

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 07, 2009, 11:56:56 AM

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 11:54:49 AM
Yeah, bring more lawyers & Swedes while you're at it, will ya?  :mellow:

Maybe a gay Swedish lawyer?

Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2009, 12:01:18 PM
However, expatriated neo-nazi Swedes, we have only one.  We need more.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 07, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
Maybe a gay Swedish lawyer?

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 12:20:22 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 07, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
Maybe a gay Swedish lawyer?

Only if he's Jewish :contract:

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 12:20:22 PM
Only if he's Jewish :contract:

Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 12:03:45 PM
I've no desire to hangout with said individuals.

Quote from: viper37 on August 07, 2009, 11:58:06 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 07, 2009, 08:53:38 AM
What APA is saying here, however, is that you can't be misinforming people, e.g. by claiming that you can "cure gay".

it's not what they're saying.
They're saying there's no psychological treatment for "gayness", because it's not a mental illness (wich has been proven in the 70s, IIRC).

It does not say there can never be any kind of gene therapy or "magic pill" to change sexual behavior.

Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2009, 12:22:04 PM

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 12:20:22 PM
Only if he's Jewish :contract:

A gay Swedish Jewish lawyer...my god it is like the platonic languish poster!

Quote from: garbon on August 07, 2009, 11:15:59 AM
I noticed in the gay psych thread on p'dox that there are a lot of gays there. They should come here!

Quote from: Martinus on August 08, 2009, 03:26:19 AM

Quote from: Valmy on August 07, 2009, 12:22:04 PM

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 12:20:22 PM
Only if he's Jewish :contract:

A gay Swedish Jewish lawyer...my god it is like the platonic languish poster!

Only if he collects battleship models. :P

QuoteOcean City fortune teller predicts 'hell' for gay customer

She should have seen it coming.

A Los Angeles man on vacation in Ocean City stopped for a Tarot card reading on the Boardwalk. But card reader June Mitchell's dire prediction about her client's hereafter led to a public dust-up, a police investigation and a petition drive, the Press of Atlantic City reports.

Mitchell told client Jamie Cohen, 22, who is gay, that he was going to hell. After hearing a little more from Mitchell, Cohen stormed out without paying her $20 fee, and that's when things got really ugly.
According to the news account, Cohen returned to retrieve his cell phone, which he had left under his chair. He says Mitchell ordered him out of the store and, in front of a crowd, used an anti-gay slur.

Mitchell admits using the word, but says Cohen called her a Gypsy; Cohen denies this. Mitchell also says she was upset by Cohen's reaction to the reading and the way he left without paying.

Mitchell says she had not meant to offend him.

"I wanted to make him happy," she says.

A born-again Christian, Mitchell says her religious doctrine opposes homosexuality.

Quote from: Neil on August 08, 2009, 07:05:09 AM
This is not some kind of gay support forum.  Official forum policy is anti-faggot, and has been for some years now.

Quote from: derspiess on August 07, 2009, 12:22:19 PM
Slargos is fun :)

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 08, 2009, 07:35:35 AM
A story that is fun on many levels. It is layered.

QuoteOcean City fortune teller predicts 'hell' for gay customer

She should have seen it coming.

A Los Angeles man on vacation in Ocean City stopped for a Tarot card reading on the Boardwalk. But card reader June Mitchell's dire prediction about her client's hereafter led to a public dust-up, a police investigation and a petition drive, the Press of Atlantic City reports.

Mitchell told client Jamie Cohen, 22, who is gay, that he was going to hell. After hearing a little more from Mitchell, Cohen stormed out without paying her $20 fee, and that's when things got really ugly.
According to the news account, Cohen returned to retrieve his cell phone, which he had left under his chair. He says Mitchell ordered him out of the store and, in front of a crowd, used an anti-gay slur.

Mitchell admits using the word, but says Cohen called her a Gypsy; Cohen denies this. Mitchell also says she was upset by Cohen's reaction to the reading and the way he left without paying.

Mitchell says she had not meant to offend him.

"I wanted to make him happy," she says.

A born-again Christian, Mitchell says her religious doctrine opposes homosexuality.

QuoteWoman Fined for Homophobia in Poland
By Julie Bolcer

In a decision gay rights advocates call groundbreaking for Poland, a judge in the northwest of the country fined a woman for using homophobic slurs to describe her gay male neighbor, reports the BBC.

The 44-year-old woman, identified as Anna S., was ordered to pay the equivalent of more than $5,000 for infringing the dignity of Ryszard Giersz (pictured) by repeatedly hurling verbal assaults at him and his partner, Tomasz, in public.

Lawyers for Giersz, 25, argued successfully that he endured constant hatred in the town of Wolin after Ms. S. began calling him a "pedal," a derogatory Polish term for a gay person that is the equivalent of "fag" or "queer" in the United States.

Polish LGBT rights campaigners hailed the decision and the case, which represented the first time a gay person pursued his or her rights so openly in the country's court system.

Ms. S., who maintains her innocence, may appeal the verdict.

Quote from: garbon on August 08, 2009, 12:14:02 PM
Sad. Mart, sometime you have to come visit me in the civilized world. Even you'd manage to be happy. :P

Quote from: Faeelin on August 08, 2009, 12:31:48 PM
Wait, you can be fined for mean words in Poland?

No wonder your neighbors gang bang you ever few years.

Quote from: Neil on August 08, 2009, 12:41:05 PM
I look forward to Martinus having to pay thousands to the Catholic Church.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 08, 2009, 01:20:05 PM
why is a born again type doing a Tarot reading? isn't that witchcraft or something?

Quote from: Neil on August 08, 2009, 07:05:09 AM
This is not some kind of gay support forum.  Official forum policy is anti-faggot, and has been for some years now.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 08, 2009, 01:20:05 PM
isn't that witchcraft or something?

Quote from: merithyn on August 09, 2009, 02:38:43 PM
As opposed to religion?  :huh:

Quote
Obama Makes Explicit His Objection to DOMA

By Scott Wilson
President Obama made clear Monday that he favors the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and intends to ask Congress to repeal the 13-year-old law that denies benefits to domestic partners of federal employees and allows states to reject same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Obama has long opposed the law, which he has called discriminatory. But his Justice Department has angered the gay community, which favored Obama by a wide margin in last year's election, by defending the law in court. The administration has said it is standard practice for the Justice Department to do so, even for laws that it does not agree with.

The Justice Department did so again Monday in its response in Smelt v. United States, a case before a U.S. District Court in California. But, for the first time, the filing itself made clear that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal."

Obama and his senior advisers have made that statement before, but never in a court brief. In addition, Obama issued a statement noting that, although his administration is again defending DOMA in court, "this brief makes clear...that my administration believes the act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress."

"While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law," Obama said in the statement.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 05:59:13 PM



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/17/obama_makes_explicit_his_objec.html

Quote
[snip]

Let's see if it happens.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 17, 2009, 08:29:49 PM

That would be an interesting development.

For those that say there's no "Jim Crow" effect in marriage legislation, in 1996, the year DOMA was passed, Alaska was the only state to ban gay marriage- it has since jumped to 29 states with legislation explicitly barring gay marriage (6 states have chosen to permit gay marriage, and it remains an open issue with 4 other states besides CA); many of those chose to follow federal "guidance" and use DOMA as a crutch to show that their bans pass the federal test.

Quote from: citizen k on August 08, 2009, 01:46:03 PM

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 08, 2009, 01:20:05 PM
why is a born again type doing a Tarot reading? isn't that witchcraft or something?

I'm sorry, just some people don't fit into categories very easily.  ;)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 17, 2009, 08:55:25 PM
You could just as easily say that it was the OMG MARRAIGE IS TEH UNDER THREAT response from the fundies toward the fact that it had been becoming far more mainstream and accepted during that same time frame. Correlation, causation, etc.

QuoteAugust 17, 2009
Report: Gay Iraqis Being Slaughtered
By Neal Broverman

The group Human Rights Watch has confirmed what has been whispered about for months: Gay men in Iraq are being routinely tortured and killed.

HRW released a report on Monday that documented the terror that gay Iraqis have endured since the end of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, including roving militiamen who have hunted and murdered gay men seeking their first taste of freedom.

Based on reports by a United Nations official in Baghdad, hospital officials, and gay Iraqi men, the report states that hundreds of gay men have been killed in Shiite areas of the Muslim nation. Iraqi officials allegedly knew about the murders but have done little to stop future killings. In Monday's Washington Post, Iraq's human rights minister said that the closeted nature of Iraq's gays makes it hard to protect them from the killers.

The kidnappings, torture, and murder of gay men coincided with the downturn of violence in Iraq that occurred in 2008. That quiet signaled a weakening of power by militia and insurgent leaders, and the subsequent Westernization of Iraq: women ditching the long robes that once covered their entire bodies, the appearance of liquor stores, and gay men gathering together in public. Possibly in response to this, Shiite religious leaders issued decrees that condemned "unnatural" behavior.

The charge d'affaires of the U.S. Embassy wrote U.S. congressman Jared Polis, a gay politician, in April and spelled out the extreme level of violence occurring, including torture methods like injecting super glue into men's rectums. Polis visited Iraq that spring and addressed the issue with U.S. and Iraqi officials.

HRW states that in recent weeks the violence has subsided a bit -- partly because many gay men have retreated back underground. Another reason for the ebb in attacks, according to Scott Long, director of the gay rights program at HRW, is that "the militias have run out of people to kill."

QuoteAnti-gay attacks on rise in Iraq
Gay Iraqi men are being murdered in what appears to be a co-ordinated campaign involving militia forces, the group Human Rights Watch says.

It says hundreds of gay men have been targeted and killed in Iraq since 2004.

So-called honour killings also account for deaths where families punish their own kin in order to avoid public shame.

The report says members of the Mehdi Army militia group are spearheading the campaign, but police are also accused - even though homosexuality is legal.

Witnesses say vigilante groups break into homes and pick people up in the street, interrogating them to extract the names of other potential victims, before murdering them.

"Murder and torture are no way to enforce morality," said HRW researcher Rasha Moumneh, quoted in the report.

"These killings point to the continuing and lethal failure of Iraq's post-occupation authorities to establish the rule of law and protect their citizens."

In some cases, Human Rights Watch says it was told, Iraqi security forces had actually "colluded and joined in the killing".

Witch-hunt

Recently, posters appeared in Sadr City - a conservative, Shia area of Baghdad - calling on people to watch out for gay men and listing not only their names but also their addresses.

One gay man in Baghdad described the killing campaign as a witch-hunt.

" These killings will continue, because it has simply become normal in Iraq to kill gay men "
Unnamed gay Iraqi man
Nearly 90 gay men have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of January and many more are missing, local gay rights campaigners say.

The report, called They want us exterminated: Murder, Torture, Sexual Orientation and Gender in Iraq, says horrifically mutilated bodies of gay men have been left on rubbish tips.

Sometimes their bodies are daubed with offensive terms such as "pervert", or "puppy" which is a hate word for gay men in Iraq.

The report contains detailed testimonies of a range of brutal treatment of gay Iraqi men.

"We've heard stories confirmed by doctors of men having their anuses glued and then being force-fed laxatives which leads to a very painful death," says Ms Moumneh told the BBC.

'Feminised men'

When questioned in the past, officials in Iraq have condemned the killings, but the BBC's Natalia Antelava in Baghdad reports that gay men there say nothing has been done to protect them.

"These killings will continue, because it has simply become normal in Iraq to kill gay men," said a gay Iraqi man who did not want to be named.

Mehdi army spokesmen and clerics have condemned what they call the "feminisation" of Iraqi men and have urged the military to take action against them.

The report said many gay men have fled to other countries in the region, despite consensual homosexual activity being illegal there, because the risk of victimisation is reduced.

HRW says the threats and abuses have spread from Baghdad to Kirkuk, Najaf and Basra, although persecution remains concentrated in the capital.

Officials say part of the problem in dealing with the attacks is that victims' relatives seldom if ever provide information to the police.

"They consider talking about the subject worse than the crime itself. This is the nature of our society," ministry spokesman Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf said.

Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2009, 06:14:57 AMLooks like the "brutal Saddam regime" that we toppled was preferable to the current situation, after all. Fucking muslims.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:09:38 AM
Sadly, I think the Islam of 26 years ago was much less fundie dominated than the current Islamic world...

Quote from: swallow on August 18, 2009, 11:20:50 AM
That's something that I've realised since coming on Languish - how different the same religion can be in different parts of the world.  The disparity makes it very difficult to solve the problems when people are saying and doing very different things under the same banner

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:30:04 AM
:yes: That's the problem that the gazillions of actually reasonable Muslims who live in big cities, and play pro sports, are doctors, or whatever have. They are drowned out by their shrill poor cousins, who make the news much more frequently.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:30:04 AM
:yes: That's the problem that the gazillions of actually reasonable Muslims who live in big cities, and play pro sports, are doctors, or whatever have. They are drowned out by their shrill poor cousins, who make the news much more frequently.

Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:34:53 AM
Where morons then lap it up and build up righteous anger against all muslims.

Quote from: swallow on August 18, 2009, 10:56:52 AM
This is horrific.

I don't understand how things can have changed so much.  I was doing some holiday work in Southern France c. 26 years ago and I remember thinking how normal the muslim men working there were about being gay - I think they  translated it as 'sensitives'

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:36:01 AM
To be fair these same morons also have righteous anger towards all Christians...at least on this board.

Well except for that crazy Flemish guy.

But still there are reasons to disagree with Islam besides being a moron.

Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:44:07 AM
I don't see how more irrational hatred makes it better...consistency? :unsure:

Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:44:07 AM

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:36:01 AM
To be fair these same morons also have righteous anger towards all Christians...at least on this board.

Well except for that crazy Flemish guy.

But still there are reasons to disagree with Islam besides being a moron.

I don't see how more irrational hatred makes it better...consistency? :unsure:

Disliking or disagreeing with Islam isn't necessarily the same as calling for the death of muslims (even specific ones).  I certainly don't agree with Islam or Christianity but I'm not calling for anyone's head.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 18, 2009, 11:46:54 AM
if more people thought like this the world would be so much more peaceful.

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:45:27 AM
It doesn't.  I am not even sure why I am defending them except I do not really take them seriously.

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:50:00 AM
Is garbon a being of: peace and light?

I think so.

Quote from: garbon on August 18, 2009, 11:50:19 AM

Quote from: Valmy on August 18, 2009, 11:45:27 AM
It doesn't.  I am not even sure why I am defending them except I do not really take them seriously.

I'm not sure why either and I've never even considered taking them seriously. After all, they're both rather impotent individuals.

QuoteTwo Miami courtrooms, two cases, one very interesting juxtaposition of Florida law:

In criminal court, prosecutors dropped a child abuse case against a man named Loscar Rodriguez, a father, who decided that a good belt lashing would teach his 8 year old son to get better grades.  Did the boy get better grades?  Not sure, but he did get raised welts on his leg and backside, bruises big and purple enough to alarm a teacher, and a butt that hurt him to sit upon.

At the same time, across town at the District Court of Appeals, a man named Frank Gill fought to protect his status as the father of two boys he first fostered then adopted.  He and his partner had taken in the two young brothers who had known no other healthy family, and were eventually called exemplary fathers and family, but the state is appealing the adoption because Gill is gay.

Florida law bans gay people from adopting children.  But it protects the right to beat a child with an object until he/she is black and blue.

Back in criminal court, prosecutors cited case law that helped them decide the belt-wielding, lash-giving Rodriguez is not a child abuser under the law.  Turns out, in cases past, Florida appellate judges have opined "even significant bruises or welts from paddling" is discipline, not abuse; that "a strike on the face, a split lip, forced feeding" is – you guessed it – discipline, not abuse.   Exactly what does a child learned from that?  How and when to dole out the same violence when he/she grows up?

Back to the DCA.  Attorneys for Gill argued Florida's exclusion of gays in the adoption process is unconstitutional.  The ban has been law for decades and has prevented countless children from the benefits of loving, responsible, nurturing parents.   

The appellate court ruling usually takes a few months.

The criminal court case was dropped in 12 minutes.

Quote from: Neil on August 27, 2009, 06:57:27 PM
Get ready, because what is happening in Iraq will happen here.

Quote from: Tyr on September 02, 2009, 11:07:17 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ULdaSrYGLQ

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
Cleveland got the 2014 gay games. Ohio got fagged up.  :(

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2009, 01:08:56 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
Cleveland got the 2014 gay games. Ohio got fagged up.  :(

Cleveland is horrible. Why would a gay person go there?

Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 01:11:41 PM
:huh: The gaymes?

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
Cleveland got the 2014 gay games. Ohio got fagged up.  :(

Quote from: Valmy on October 03, 2009, 04:52:16 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
Cleveland got the 2014 gay games. Ohio got fagged up.  :(

I heard that every day 500 people move out of Ohio.  I guess they are getting desperate to have anybody go there.

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 03, 2009, 05:18:40 PM
And before Marti goes off on a histrionic rant, I like the gays. Especially Lesbians.

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 03, 2009, 05:18:40 PM
Especially Lesbians.

Quote from: garbon on October 04, 2009, 12:01:38 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 03, 2009, 05:18:40 PM
Especially Lesbians.

Yeah, who wouldn't love ugly women that dress like slobby men!

Quote from: garbon on October 03, 2009, 01:08:56 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on October 02, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
Cleveland got the 2014 gay games. Ohio got fagged up.  :(

Cleveland is horrible. Why would a gay person go there?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 04, 2009, 08:24:25 AM
I'm sure Syt has seen many more of those documentaries than Martinus has.

Quote from: Faeelin on October 05, 2009, 10:33:44 AM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/02/BANH1A0DM8.DTL#ixzz0StMx9g7r

The judge in the federal California Prop 8 case is asking for the supporters to release documents on campaign strategy to discern their motivation for the Amendment.

QuoteAndrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 sponsors, said Friday it was unprecedented to allow "the losing side of a campaign to pry into the most intimate strategy discussions of the winning side."

QuoteLevi Johnston Accepts Playgirl Offer to Pose

By Steve Javors, XBIZ.com
Thu, Sep 03 2009 04:00pm PDT

NEW YORK — Burgeoning gay icon Levi Johnston has decided to accept an offer to pose for Playgirl — the only catch is that he won't be fully nude.

Gawker.com reported today that an agreement has been reached for Johnston to pose in his skivvies for Playgirl.com and the final details currently are being hammered out.

What started as a joke between Johnston and his manager during a photo shoot for Vanity Fair is now actually going to happen. After reading about Johnston's willingness to pose nude, Playgirl photo coordinator Daniel Nardicio got in contact with Johnston's manager, Tank Jones who passed along the message to his client's lawyer.

"There are people out there that want to see such a shoot of Levi and we are ready to do it if the proposal is right," his lawyer Rex Butler wrote.

Perhaps unaware that Playgirl is targeted at a gay male audience, Johnston said, "I'm assuming it's where a dude poses for women." Johnston, the father of former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's grandson, first started attracting gay fans en masse after he attended FOX's Teen Choice Awards with comedienne Kathy Griffin who has a huge gay following.

Since that appearance, and after he's stated publicly that he'd be willing to pose nude, Johnston has received a few offers: StraightCollegeMen.com offered him $25,000 for a solo masturbation scene and Unzipped magazine proffered a cover story and nude photo layout.
Playgirl folded its print publication in November 2008.

QuoteSaid Johnston: "I think it's great man, um, I like my fans. Just another person." When Cohen asked Johnston if there were any gays in Wasilla, Johnston responded, "Oh yeah. We got gays in Wasilla, Anchorage, they're all up here."

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2009, 02:01:16 PM
I'm glad we could go back to early september. Almost time for another 9/11 memorial.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 05, 2009, 02:11:55 PM

QuoteAndrew Pugno, a lawyer for the Prop. 8 sponsors, said Friday it was unprecedented to allow "the losing side of a campaign to pry into the most intimate strategy discussions of the winning side."

Pure :tinfoil: Strategy equals consideration equals intent, so if there's a viable question of legislation made in bad faith, wouldn't that be the most critical evidence?

Quote from: The Brain on October 03, 2009, 01:05:50 PM
I was AMBUSHED at home by the TV TAXMAN who threatened me with GITMO and made me report TV ownership.

Oh well, I had 15 good years.

QuoteFrench gay soccer team snubbed by Muslim team

PARIS — A French gay soccer team says its members were victims of homophobia when a team of Muslim players refused to play a match against them.

The Paris Foot Gay team says Tuesday it received an e-mail from the Creteil Bebel club canceling a match scheduled for last Sunday.

"Because of the principles of our team, which is a team of devout Muslims, we can't play against you," the e-mail said, according to Paris Foot Gay. The e-mail received Saturday said, "Our convictions are much more important than a simple football match."

Paris Foot Gay said in a statement that it asked the amateur league to sanction Creteil Bebel.

Zahir Belgarbi, identified as a spokesman for Creteil Bebel, told France-Info radio he apologized if "anyone felt upset or hurt."

Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2009, 04:25:25 AM
So much for muslims integrating well.

QuoteFrench gay soccer team snubbed by Muslim team

PARIS — A French gay soccer team says its members were victims of homophobia when a team of Muslim players refused to play a match against them.

The Paris Foot Gay team says Tuesday it received an e-mail from the Creteil Bebel club canceling a match scheduled for last Sunday.

"Because of the principles of our team, which is a team of devout Muslims, we can't play against you," the e-mail said, according to Paris Foot Gay. The e-mail received Saturday said, "Our convictions are much more important than a simple football match."

Paris Foot Gay said in a statement that it asked the amateur league to sanction Creteil Bebel.

Zahir Belgarbi, identified as a spokesman for Creteil Bebel, told France-Info radio he apologized if "anyone felt upset or hurt."

QuoteZahir Belgarbi, identified as a spokesman for Creteil Bebel, told France-Info radio he apologized if "anyone felt upset or hurt."

Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2009, 08:02:09 AM

QuoteZahir Belgarbi, identified as a spokesman for Creteil Bebel, told France-Info radio he apologized if "anyone felt upset or hurt."

Since I am pretty sure nowhere in Islam does it specifically say you cannot play football with gay people I wonder what the intention of the snub was besides hurting or upsetting people?

Quote from: Martinus on October 07, 2009, 04:25:25 AM
So much for muslims integrating well.

Quote from: Neil on October 07, 2009, 08:13:29 AM

Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2009, 08:02:09 AM

QuoteZahir Belgarbi, identified as a spokesman for Creteil Bebel, told France-Info radio he apologized if "anyone felt upset or hurt."

Since I am pretty sure nowhere in Islam does it specifically say you cannot play football with gay people I wonder what the intention of the snub was besides hurting or upsetting people?

To avoid contact with the enemy?

Quote from: Faeelin on October 10, 2009, 08:10:16 PM
going to DC tomorrow to pressure grass.

Quote from: Faeelin on October 10, 2009, 08:10:16 PM
Well, Obama just gave his big gay speech.

I felt a bit better about going to DC tomorrow to pressure grass.

Quote from: Neil on October 10, 2009, 09:23:34 PM
Why would you want to pressure DC grass?

Quote from: Faeelin on October 07, 2009, 11:14:45 AM
Yes, because no Christians have ever done stuff like that.

Quote from: Valmy on October 10, 2009, 10:35:03 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on October 07, 2009, 11:14:45 AM
Yes, because no Christians have ever done stuff like that.

Yeah because Marty is always such a pro-Christian sort of guy.  That got him!  Zing!  Worst comeback to Marty ever.

Quote from: Faeelin on October 10, 2009, 09:24:33 PM

Quote from: Neil on October 10, 2009, 09:23:34 PM
Why would you want to pressure DC grass?

Training for when I grind your nation beneath my heel.

Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2009, 04:10:07 AM
Well, I hate Muslims more than Christians, but only a little bit.

If there is one lesson Hitler taught us, is that you can't go about exterminating everybody at once. Small steps and all that.

Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2009, 06:12:08 AM
Who will follow you?  You can't even get the people of your country to allow you to marry some guy, let alone lead them in a war under your ideology of Martinusism.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2009, 03:45:12 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpewresearch.org%2Fassets%2Fpublications%2F1375-1.gif&hash=43b6a13472e8e90f051119affebe7631b060ab14)

QuoteDead Law Walking
Why are New York cops arresting gay people on charges ruled unconstitutional 26 years ago?
By Daniel Redman
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009, at 1:52 PM ET
In 1983, New York's high court struck down as unconstitutional a 1960s-era provision that made it illegal to cruise—that is, to hit on someone in a public place. And yet in the 26 years since, on thousands of occasions, the New York Police Department has continued to enforce the defunct law, historically used to target gay people.


The defendant in the 1983 case was a gay man arrested for striking up a conversation with a plainclothes police officer and asking him back to his house for sex. The court threw out the anti-cruising law, reasoning that the state couldn't criminalize an act anticipatory to sodomy when sodomy itself was constitutionally protected. (Two years earlier, the same court had found the state's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional.)

Whatever one may think of cruising and whether it should be prohibited, the court's ruling should have killed off the statute. Instead, in the 26 years of this law's odd posthumous career, district attorneys brought 4,750 prosecutions and judges convicted 2,550 defendants. For violating an imaginary law, these defendants paid a decidedly non-imaginary $70,000 in bail and $190,000 in court fees and fines. In the last 10 years, NYPD officers also issued 9,693 citations, forcing citizens to pay $71,000 in fees. The criminal records of these victims have never been expunged and the fees and fines have not been refunded.


In 2001, a gay man who refused to plead guilty got his case dismissed, but he did not win a broader remedy. Police arrested the man for telling a plainclothes officer in the Bronx's Van Cortlandt Park that he was there "to meet guys." When his attorney Michael Spiegel discovered that the anti-cruising law was invalid, he brought it to the court's attention. Four months later, the case was dismissed. Spiegel and the client considered a civil rights lawsuit, but the city offered a settlement that the client accepted. Despite the settlement, the case should have still put the cops, prosecutors, and the courts on notice. In 2003, Gay City News' Duncan Osborne wrote a story headlined "Gay man in 2001 arrested on soliciting law thrown out in 1983." Yet the NYPD continued to arrest and issue summonses, and district attorneys continued to prosecute.

In March 2008, civil rights lawyers brought a class action in federal court on behalf of the thousands of people unconstitutionally arrested, cited, and prosecuted under the defunct anti-cruising law. In May, Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered the City of New York to send letters to the police, district attorneys, and trial judges to remind them that the anti-cruising law was void and should no longer be enforced. NYPD brass sent out a bulletin to officers stating that in each officer's personal copy of the penal code, the law should be "stricken by drawing a line through it in black ink." (After 26 years, the law was still on the books because the legislature had never repealed it.)

Apparently, the NYPD ran out of black ink. From the day that the bulletin went out until now, hundreds of additional summonses for cruising have been issued. Celeste Koeleveld, of the New York City Law Department, says that the NYPD has taken "many proactive steps to address the issuance of any summonses" under unconstitutional laws. But the most recent summons for violating the anti-cruising law was issued in September 2009—nearly a year and a half after the NYPD's bulletin went out. "It is truly shocking that after 26 years and multiple court orders, they just can't stop doing it," said McGregor Smyth, a lawyer at the Bronx Defenders who is counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action. The NYPD did not respond to several requests for comment.

How did this miscarriage of justice, involving thousands, evade notice all this time? One possible answer lies in the combination of intimidation and minimum deprivation of rights, at least in the short-run, which enforcement has entailed. People who were issued citations may have feared being exposed as gay or as out of line with the norms of sexual propriety. Many of these people paid the ticket, pled guilty by doing so, and—without a judge or defense lawyer to raise a question—tried to leave the whole thing behind them. Also, as the judge in the class action acknowledged, many of them probably pled guilty or accepted plea bargains without even knowing that the anti-cruising statute had been ruled unconstitutional.

In some cases, the citations may have had long-term and more serious consequences than simply paying a fine. More than 6,900 bench warrants were issued between 1983 and 2008 for people arrested or issued a citation who missed their court dates or failed to pay the fine after pleading guilty. A pending warrant can lead to a denial of citizenship for an immigrant, disqualification for public housing, or the loss of a job opportunity if an employer conducts a criminal background check. And when a charge for cruising is tacked on to another charge, as happened in half of the prosecutions, it can easily create additional pressure to plead guilty, says professor Erin Murphy of U.C.-Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.

The anti-cruising law isn't the only unconstitutional statute wielded against New Yorkers. A law banning loitering in public transportation facilities was struck down in 1988—and then enforced against more than 500 people over the next decade. A law that criminalized begging has been enforced more than 7,000 times after being thrown out by a federal appeals court on free speech grounds. These statutes plus the anti-cruising provision—all the subject of pending federal lawsuits—have racked up more than 20,000 arrests and citations that had absolutely no legal basis. That's 20,000 too many. The courts buried these laws long ago, and it's time for the NYPD to let them rest in peace.

QuoteIn some cases, the citations may have had long-term and more serious consequences than simply paying a fine. More than 6,900 bench warrants were issued between 1983 and 2008 for people arrested or issued a citation who missed their court dates or failed to pay the fine after pleading guilty. A pending warrant can lead to a denial of citizenship for an immigrant, disqualification for public housing, or the loss of a job opportunity if an employer conducts a criminal background check.

Quote from: garbon on October 21, 2009, 02:18:02 AM

QuoteIn some cases, the citations may have had long-term and more serious consequences than simply paying a fine. More than 6,900 bench warrants were issued between 1983 and 2008 for people arrested or issued a citation who missed their court dates or failed to pay the fine after pleading guilty. A pending warrant can lead to a denial of citizenship for an immigrant, disqualification for public housing, or the loss of a job opportunity if an employer conducts a criminal background check.

Oh noes, people who break real laws after being cited for fake laws get in trouble.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 20, 2009, 10:13:54 PM
The frothing factor will be quite high on this story.

Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 03:32:36 AM
Well let's assume you are cited daily for the crime of being a bitch and then told to spend each of your days court defending yourself. Surely you recognise how a failure to do so on any given day resulting in a criminal warrant issued after you would be a miscarriage of justice.

Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2009, 12:28:50 PM
America blows.

Quote from: Syt on October 21, 2009, 12:30:09 PM

Quote from: The Brain on October 21, 2009, 12:28:50 PM
America blows.

But does it swallow?

Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 03:45:27 AM
Well I realise the cancerous retard is trying to troll, but he is not very good at it, as he is plainly offensive (rather than being outrageously offensive like Neil) and unfunny in his troll.

So I can only express my extreme hatred for him and rest assured in my knowledge he will kick the bucket soon enough when his cancer hopefully and fortuitously relapses.

Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 03:32:36 AM
Well let's assume you are cited daily for the crime of being a bitch and then told to spend each of your days court defending yourself. Surely you recognise how a failure to do so on any given day resulting in a criminal warrant issued after you would be a miscarriage of justice.

Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 12:46:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 03:32:36 AM
Well let's assume you are cited daily for the crime of being a bitch and then told to spend each of your days court defending yourself. Surely you recognise how a failure to do so on any given day resulting in a criminal warrant issued after you would be a miscarriage of justice.

Btw, I find it very interesting that your suggestion is that when the law (in this case represented by the court telling you to appear) is annoying, one should just ignore it.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 03:54:07 AM
That is not what I am saying and you know it.

I am saying that if a failure to challenge illegal charges brought up against you can in itself constitute a crime (or at least carry negative legal consequences) - and at the same time there seem to be no mechanism in place to award you damages for the illegal charges being brought against you and for punishing whoever abused their authority this by bring those charges - this is an easy way to harass and persecute people who are not doing anything illegal in the first place, and a very serious threat to the rule of law and to civil rights.

*not untrue, i.e. you are charged with a crime that you did not commit; but illegal, i.e. you are charged with something that is not illegal to begin with.

Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 09:49:03 AM
Alternatively, if one is lazy, stop propositioning strangers for sex in parks. It isn't safe!

Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2009, 10:52:11 AM
I don't get the attraction. Just set up a civilized meeting through the internet. I mean wtf.

Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 10:10:57 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 09:49:03 AM
Alternatively, if one is lazy, stop propositioning strangers for sex in parks. It isn't safe!

Not that propositioning random people in New York City public places is really a safe mode of behavior in the first place.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:15:54 AM

Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2009, 10:52:11 AM
I don't get the attraction. Just set up a civilized meeting through the internet. I mean wtf.

That is beyond the point - I think propositioning random people in a park is rather crude and I'd never do it myself - I just don't think it should be illegal.

I see it the way I see gay marriage - sure it's not for me, but it is like creating a buffer client state near your own borders - I don't want the borders of freedom to be running right where my personal preference ends.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:18:54 AM
I'm just completely stunned by the mindset of a policeman who goes out there to stand in the park in the hope of some low class homo propositioning him. Surely it can't be just the simple homophobia - is this the kind of example where homophobia and repressed homosexuality converge?

I mean it's not like there aren't more serious crimes to pursue.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:18:54 AM
I'm just completely stunned by the mindset of a policeman who goes out there to stand in the park in the hope of some low class homo propositioning him. Surely it can't be just the simple homophobia - is this the kind of example where homophobia and repressed homosexuality converge?

I mean it's not like there aren't more serious crimes to pursue.

Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 11:29:02 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:18:54 AM
I'm just completely stunned by the mindset of a policeman who goes out there to stand in the park in the hope of some low class homo propositioning him. Surely it can't be just the simple homophobia - is this the kind of example where homophobia and repressed homosexuality converge?

I mean it's not like there aren't more serious crimes to pursue.

Well I hope for the sake of the tax payers of New York City they are there to catch other crimes and just happened to get those guys in the process.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:34:07 AM
Well from what I gather from anecdotal evidence surrounding such arrests, these are actually very often policemen who are out to get the fags at any cost. There was recently a case of a policeman in Chicago who was discharged from duty because he would go to the gay district and give unwarranted DUI tickets to all gays he could find because he hates the 'mos.

Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 11:22:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:18:54 AM
I'm just completely stunned by the mindset of a policeman who goes out there to stand in the park in the hope of some low class homo propositioning him. Surely it can't be just the simple homophobia - is this the kind of example where homophobia and repressed homosexuality converge?

I mean it's not like there aren't more serious crimes to pursue.

Well I'm sure they catch their fair share of homos actually have sex in the parks, which is illegal.

Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on October 22, 2009, 12:19:27 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 11:22:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:18:54 AM
I'm just completely stunned by the mindset of a policeman who goes out there to stand in the park in the hope of some low class homo propositioning him. Surely it can't be just the simple homophobia - is this the kind of example where homophobia and repressed homosexuality converge?

I mean it's not like there aren't more serious crimes to pursue.

Well I'm sure they catch their fair share of homos actually have sex in the parks, which is illegal.

:yes: especially when money (and any number of stds) also changes hands.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
So prostitution is illegal too? America never ceases to amaze me.  :lol:

Quote from: ulmont on October 22, 2009, 01:48:33 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
So prostitution is illegal too? America never ceases to amaze me.  :lol:

Almost everywhere, yes.  I believe parts of Nevada and Rhode Island allow some form of legal prostitution.

Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
Sweden made buying sex illegal 10 years ago. An incredibly retarded law. Selling sex is still legal though.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
So prostitution is illegal too? America never ceases to amaze me.  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on October 22, 2009, 02:17:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 01:45:36 PM
So prostitution is illegal too? America never ceases to amaze me.  :lol:

How is that amazing?

Anyway it is dependent on the local community so if you want your city to have prostitution you simply have to vote for it.

Quote from: ulmont on October 22, 2009, 02:19:53 PM
...probably at the state level.  Good luck with that.

Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2009, 12:46:25 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 21, 2009, 03:32:36 AM
Well let's assume you are cited daily for the crime of being a bitch and then told to spend each of your days court defending yourself. Surely you recognise how a failure to do so on any given day resulting in a criminal warrant issued after you would be a miscarriage of justice.

Btw, I find it very interesting that your suggestion is that when the law (in this case represented by the court telling you to appear) is annoying, one should just ignore it.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 02:05:20 PM
I think it is extremely retarded to penalize prostitution, especially as sex has been used as a commodity since time immemorial and what terms consenting adults want to attach to sex should not be the state's business. Some people want a lease-like relationship and call it marriage. Other want a one-time-ride deal and call it prostitution.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 11:34:07 AM
Well from what I gather from anecdotal evidence surrounding such arrests, these are actually very often policemen who are out to get the fags at any cost. There was recently a case of a policeman in Chicago who was discharged from duty because he would go to the gay district and give unwarranted DUI tickets to all gays he could find because he hates the 'mos.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 02:05:20 PM

Quote from: The Brain on October 22, 2009, 02:02:30 PM
Sweden made buying sex illegal 10 years ago. An incredibly retarded law. Selling sex is still legal though.

In Poland it is illegal to effectively run a prostitution ring, however in one-on-one prostitution deals no party is committing a crime.

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 02:05:20 PM
In Poland it is illegal to effectively run a prostitution ring, however in one-on-one prostitution deals no party is committing a crime.

I think it is extremely retarded to penalize prostitution, especially as sex has been used as a commodity since time immemorial and what terms consenting adults want to attach to sex should not be the state's business. Some people want a lease-like relationship and call it marriage. Other want a one-time-ride deal and call it prostitution.

Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2009, 01:56:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on October 22, 2009, 02:05:20 PM
In Poland it is illegal to effectively run a prostitution ring, however in one-on-one prostitution deals no party is committing a crime.

I think it is extremely retarded to penalize prostitution, especially as sex has been used as a commodity since time immemorial and what terms consenting adults want to attach to sex should not be the state's business. Some people want a lease-like relationship and call it marriage. Other want a one-time-ride deal and call it prostitution.

Okay, Mart, I'll bite.  What's wrong now, that is causing you to act out?

Quote from: Martinus on October 23, 2009, 02:42:19 AM
I have my prostatitis flare up and my scrotum hurts like a motherfucker.

Happy now? :P

Quote from: Washington Post

Pentagon starts process of lifting gay ban

By ANNE FLAHERTY
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 30, 2010; 10:23 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.

A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While the review is likely to take the better part of this year to complete, and even more time to implement, its initiation will advance President Barack Obama's goal of repealing the ban and bring a divisive issue for the military back to the fore.

At the White House, officials continued reviewing options to repeal the Clinton-era policy that the president vowed to repeal. The administration still believes that any repeal should start in Congress and have the backing of top military leaders.

To that end, Obama and Gates planned a meeting next week to discuss, among other topics, ending "don't ask, don't tell" policies. The president was also likely to speak with Mullen, who has signaled he would carry out a repeal if ordered by Obama and Congress.

Lifting the ban poses some emotional questions that go to the heart of the military's command structure and the trust relationships within military units. Among them: Will U.S. troops and leaders tolerate openly gay members in their midst? And if they don't, what should the Pentagon do about it?

The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was imposed by a 1993 law intended as a compromise between President Bill Clinton, who wanted to lift the ban on gays entirely, and a reluctant Congress and military that said doing so would threaten order.
ad_icon

Under the policy, the military can't ask recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex.

Between 1997 and 2008, the Defense Department discharged more than 10,500 service members for violating the policy.

The review to be announced next week was expected to delve into practical issues that surround changing the law: Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex? Would the military recognize civil unions and how much would it cost to extend benefits to a service member's partner? Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren't passed over for promotions?

Obama has promised to repeal the law but did little to press the issue in his first year as president. In his national address on Wednesday, Obama received a standing ovation from some members of Congress and Gates when he suggested that would change.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," Obama said during his State of the Union address. "It's the right thing to do."

While his promise is being hailed as a good start by gay rights' activists, Obama is finding resistance in several corners. Some high-ranking military officers are reluctant to embrace the change while the forces are stretched thin at a time of two wars.

Democrats in Congress are also unlikely to press the issue until after this fall's midterm elections.

This will probably satisfy Gates, who has long suggested that change shouldn't come too quickly. In a speech last year at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa., Gated noted that the 1948 executive order for racial integration took five years to implement.

"I'm not saying that's a model for this, but I'm saying that I believe this is something that needs to be done very, very carefully," he told the audience.

Quote from: Caliga on February 01, 2010, 04:12:17 PM
Yeah, I dunno what that timeframe means, but I mean when Truman (I think it was) desegregated the military, it's not like he flipped a switch and suddenly the colored-only formations had been fully integrated/vanished by the end of the day.

Quote from: The Brain on February 01, 2010, 04:13:35 PM
IIRC there are no gay-only formations. Except the Navy.

Quote from: Faeelin on February 01, 2010, 04:16:11 PM
My concern is twofold:

1) The "process" being started is basically cutting back on expulsions reported by 3rd parties (The fact of which they're going on is still a crock).

2) It's gonna be contingnent on several years of studies showing it won't have an effect on unit morale or cohesion, even though we've had studies on this ad nauseum.

So, basically the Democrats could've started this a year ago. I'm not overly impressed.

Quote from: garbon on February 01, 2010, 05:33:09 PM
Leave me out of the armed forces, thanks.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 02, 2010, 06:16:31 PM
How about we just don't bring back the draft.

QuoteAbsolutely. Look at me. I'm a WWE superstar and to be honest with you, I'll tell you right now, I'm gay. And I'm happy. I'm very happy.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
Marti hacked BBs account?

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2013, 01:56:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
Marti hacked BBs account?

I thought it was noteworthy even though I'm not Marti... :unsure:

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2013, 01:56:39 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 15, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
Marti hacked BBs account?

I thought it was noteworthy even though I'm not Marti... :unsure:

Quote from: Caliga on August 15, 2013, 02:02:26 PM
I miss Mart. :(

Quote from: Caliga on August 15, 2013, 02:02:26 PM
I miss Mart. :(

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2013, 01:51:58 PM
This isn't the gay mega-thread I was looking for, but it'll do.

TMZ goes up to a WWE wrestler and asks him if he thinks a gay wrestler could make it in WWE.  The wrestler, Darren Young, replies:

QuoteAbsolutely. Look at me. I'm a WWE superstar and to be honest with you, I'll tell you right now, I'm gay. And I'm happy. I'm very happy.

Quote from: Caliga on August 15, 2013, 02:02:26 PM
I miss Mart. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2013, 05:43:12 PM
Why can't it ever be, "I'm gay.  I'm actually very depressed, but fucking guys does make me feel better"?

Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2013, 05:43:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2013, 01:51:58 PM
This isn't the gay mega-thread I was looking for, but it'll do.

TMZ goes up to a WWE wrestler and asks him if he thinks a gay wrestler could make it in WWE.  The wrestler, Darren Young, replies:

QuoteAbsolutely. Look at me. I'm a WWE superstar and to be honest with you, I'll tell you right now, I'm gay. And I'm happy. I'm very happy.

Why can't it ever be, "I'm gay.  I'm actually very depressed, but fucking guys does make me feel better"?

Quote from: garbon on August 15, 2013, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on August 15, 2013, 05:43:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 15, 2013, 01:51:58 PM
This isn't the gay mega-thread I was looking for, but it'll do.

TMZ goes up to a WWE wrestler and asks him if he thinks a gay wrestler could make it in WWE.  The wrestler, Darren Young, replies:

QuoteAbsolutely. Look at me. I'm a WWE superstar and to be honest with you, I'll tell you right now, I'm gay. And I'm happy. I'm very happy.

Why can't it ever be, "I'm gay.  I'm actually very depressed, but fucking guys does make me feel better"?

What do you think I did during the first 3/4 of 2010? :ph34r:

Quote from: Syt on August 16, 2013, 01:57:26 PM
Meanwhile, in Caliga's backyard ...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/428601/august-14-2013/people-who-are-destroying-america---johnny-cummings

QuotePa. Attorneys: Gays, Like Children, Can't Marry
HARRISBURG, Pa. August 29, 2013 (AP)
Associated Press

Marriage licenses given to same-sex couples in the state are invalid because the couples were barred from marrying, just like 12-year-olds, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett's attorneys said Wednesday.

Corbett's administration has filed a lawsuit seeking to block same-sex marriage licenses in suburban Philadelphia, where Montgomery County Register of Wills D. Bruce Hanes has issued more than 150 to gay and lesbian couples since July 24.

State attorneys said in a court filing on Wednesday the gay marriage licenses have no "value or legitimacy" and can't be defended in court. They compared gay and lesbian couples to children, who can't marry because a 1996 law says marriage is between a man and a woman.

"Had the clerk issued marriage licenses to 12-year-olds in violation of state law, would anyone seriously contend that each 12-year-old ... is entitled to a hearing on the validity of his 'license'?" the state wrote, according to a story on the Philly.com news website (http://bit.ly/1fk0xSf).

The state Department of Health brought the case against Hanes. Hanes, who says the state law is unconstitutional and discriminatory, is scheduled to appear in Commonwealth Court next week in the case.

More than 30 gay and lesbian couples that received marriage licenses from Hanes say a ruling against him could invalidate their marriages, and they've sought to participate in the case.

The state opposes their participation and their efforts to defend what it calls their "purported marriage licenses." It said the gay and lesbian couples should file their own lawsuits or wait to see what happens with a federal challenge to the state's marriage law.

"This case is about one thing: whether a local official may willfully disregard a statute based on his personal legal opinion that the statute is unconstitutional," the state's lawyers wrote.

The Commonwealth Court last week laid out the topics to be argued at the Sept. 4 hearing on the marriage licenses issued by Hanes. It wants lawyers to focus on whether the court has jurisdiction, given that Hanes is a judicial officer.

Other questions are whether issuing marriage licenses is a judicial act and whether the constitutionality of the state's marriage law can be raised as a defense.

Also at issue are whether the Department of Health has standing to sue, and, if not, the effect of Democratic Attorney General Kathleen Kane's delegation of defense of the law to the governor's legal staff.

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 10:49:37 PM
Gays marrying is no different than 12 year olds doing so

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 01:35:20 AM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 10:49:37 PM
Gays marrying is no different than 12 year olds doing so

No one said this Meri.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 01:35:20 AM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 10:49:37 PM
Gays marrying is no different than 12 year olds doing so

No one said this Meri.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 01:35:20 AM

Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2013, 10:49:37 PM
Gays marrying is no different than 12 year olds doing so

No one said this Meri.

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 07:03:39 AM
The problem is that there really is no need for that example except to create a linkage between the two scenarios on the basis of how appalling one finds the first.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 12:41:12 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 07:03:39 AM
The problem is that there really is no need for that example except to create a linkage between the two scenarios on the basis of how appalling one finds the first.

The linkage he made was that neither have grounds for a hearing.

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
That's rather charitable.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2013, 01:09:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 12:59:54 PM
That's rather charitable.

I re-read the article, and I think it depends on whether you take the leed as an accurate characterization of the state's position or not.  Based on the direct quote I concluded that it was an inaccurate characterization, but I can see how your interpretation could be different.  Maybe it's true that the PA AG's office did in fact say there is no difference between gays marrying and 12 year olds marrying, it just wasn't directly quoted.

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:21:32 PM

I think you have to look at what Valm wrote. When making comparisons, one should look to make sure it is apt and not easily open to negative connotations.

Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2013, 01:21:32 PM
I think you have to look at what Valm wrote. When making comparisons, one should look to make sure it is apt and not easily open to negative connotations.

Quote
It's official. The Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of Treasury ruled today that all same-sex marriages will be recognized at the federal level for tax purposes.

Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2013, 11:16:52 PM
Children marrying is a consent issue.  Gays marrying is an issue of them being disgusting and that we shouldn't encourage Martinusism.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 29, 2013, 05:32:59 PM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/same-sex-couples-celebrate-then-call-a-cpa-2013-06-26

Quote
It's official. The Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Department of Treasury ruled today that all same-sex marriages will be recognized at the federal level for tax purposes.

QuoteNew Jersey must allow gay couples to marry starting Oct. 21, because the state is unconstitutionally denying federal benefits to same-sex couples, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson sided almost entirely with a group of same-sex couples and gay rights groups who sued the state in July, days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of a law that blocked the federal government from granting benefits to gay couples.

New Jersey allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions that give them some of the same legal protections as married couples, but Jacobson said the two labels — marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for same-sex couples — means gay couples are excluded "from certain federal benefits that legally married same-sex couples are able to enjoy."

Same-sex couples who include a federal employee, those who want to use the federal Family Medical Leave Act or those who file joint federal tax returns are being hurt by the state's recognition of civil unions but not gay marriage, she wrote.

"Every day that the state does not allow same-sex couples to marry, plaintiffs are being harmed," Jacobson wrote in a 53-page opinion.

By making her order effective more than three weeks from now, the state has time to appeal to a higher court and ask for a delay to the start of same-sex marriage.

Gov. Chris Christie did not immediately say whether he would appeal, but he opposes gay marriage and had his administration defend the state's current policy this far.

"The judge has issued a very thorough and powerful opinion that shows the correctness under the constitution of our claims," said Hayley Gorenberg, a Lambda Legal lawyer who prepared the lawsuit. "It shows the deep error the state's been making in refusing to let people marry on an equal basis."

Gay marriage supporters were planning to rally Friday night in Montclair to celebrate the ruling.

Thirteen states now recognize same-sex marriages, including the entire Northeast except for Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

It's been a major political and legal issue in New Jersey for more than a decade.

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2006 that same sex-couples had the right to the same legal protections as married couples, but a 4-3 majority ruled that the state did not have to go as far as calling those benefits marriage. Lawmakers responded by quickly creating civil unions.

In 2011, six couples and children of several of them asked the courts to find that the civil union law was not fulfilling its intention because it created a separate classification for gay couples that not everyone understood.

The state Supreme Court then decided against giving it emergency status and instead sent the issue back to a lower court.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June on the Defense of Marriage Act changed the argument and the couples asked anew for speedy relief.

Federal agencies have rolled out a variety of policies on whether they will recognize marriages of any gay couples, or only those in states that recognize their vows.

The Christie administration argued that it's the federal government's patchwork of policies rather than the state that is keeping lesbian and gay couples in New Jersey from having the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

Even if Friday's summary judgment is ultimately rejected on appeal, the broader case would remain, though it would likely take several months before a trial could be held.

The question of gay marriage is also in the Legislature.

In 2012, lawmakers passed a law to allow gay marriage, but Christie, a Republican who is up for re-election in November and is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, vetoed it. He said the question should be decided by a vote of the people rather than by judges or elected representatives.

On Friday, Sheila Oliver, the Democratic speaker of the state Assembly, called on Christie not to appeal the ruling.

Meanwhile, a coalition of gay rights groups has been pushing lawmakers to override the veto by January.

Quote from: Viking on December 19, 2013, 02:42:12 PM
http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/12/19/brian-boitano-comes-out-as-gay/

Apparently Brian Boitano is gay. I know, who'd have thunk it.

Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 02:49:21 PM
I was pretty sure the only straight male figure skater was Paul Wylie.  Should have won the gold in 1992.  Viktor Petrenko pfft.

Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 02:49:21 PM
I was pretty sure the only straight male figure skater was Paul Wylie.  Should have won the gold in 1992.  Viktor Petrenko pfft.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2013, 03:13:05 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 02:49:21 PM
I was pretty sure the only straight male figure skater was Paul Wylie.  Should have won the gold in 1992.  Viktor Petrenko pfft.

Elvis Stojko, Kurt Browning and Scott Hamilton - to name just a few.

If we consider all the couples male skaters the list gets very long very fast.

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2013, 03:13:05 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 02:49:21 PM
I was pretty sure the only straight male figure skater was Paul Wylie.  Should have won the gold in 1992.  Viktor Petrenko pfft.

Elvis Stojko, Kurt Browning and Scott Hamilton - to name just a few.

If we consider all the couples male skaters the list gets very long very fast.

Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 03:33:26 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2013, 03:13:05 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 19, 2013, 02:49:21 PM
I was pretty sure the only straight male figure skater was Paul Wylie.  Should have won the gold in 1992.  Viktor Petrenko pfft.

Elvis Stojko, Kurt Browning and Scott Hamilton - to name just a few.

If we consider all the couples male skaters the list gets very long very fast.

I may have been exaggerating stereotyping

Quote from: crazy canuck on December 19, 2013, 04:30:06 PM
fyp

QuoteEDINBURGH, Scotland — Scotland becomes the 17th country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, after the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday passed the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill by an overwhelming majority.

105 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voted in favor, 18 objected and 0 abstained.

Five last minute amendments putting limits on the Marriage Equality bill, by Christian MSP John Mason, were rejected.

Secretary for Health and Well Being, Alex Neil, stated during the vote: "Scotland is a nation that cherishes love. I commend this bill to the chamber, and invite MSPs to support it."

The first same-sex marriages are now expected to take place later this year after the Scottish Government pledged to speed up the implementation of the Bill.

Originally, the first ceremonies were not expected until spring 2015 because of the time needed to pass secondary legislation and fully implement the Bill, but in a video message to marriage equality supporters, Neil pledged to "work with our Westminster colleagues to make it happen as quickly as possible."
Unlike in England and Wales, Scotland will allow humanists marriage ceremonies.

The Church of Scotland will not automatically be banned from solemnizing same-sex marriages, which is also in contrast to the ban on the Church of England in the rest of the United Kingdom.

All faiths will be allowed to solemnizing same-sex marriages, or opt out if they so wish.

The Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian Churches of Scotland have already stated they will not sanction their clergy to marry same-sex couples.

"Today will be remembered in history as the day that lesbian, gay and bisexual people were finally granted full legal equality in Scotland, and given an equal right to marry the person they love," said said Tom French, Policy Coordinator for the Equality Network, a Scottish LGBT advocacy group.

"This is a profoundly emotional moment for many people who grew up in a country where being gay was still a criminal offense until 1980. Scotland can be proud that we now have one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world, and that we've sent out a strong message about the kind of country we are," said French.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: "Proud to have voted for equal marriage. Scotland is a better place tonight."

QuoteMyanmar couple in 'first public gay wedding ceremony'
South East Asia correspondent Samantha Hawley and staff
Updated Tue 4 Mar 2014, 9:02am AEDT

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2Fimage%2F5296448-3x2-700x467.jpg&hash=cfe307fad47ce8ca9b32078e7e47a2abb65bcb72)
PHOTO: Tin Ko Ko (R) and Myo Min Htet (L) celebrate their wedding reception in Yangon, in what's believed to be the first ever public gay marriage in Myanmar (AFP)
MAP: Burma
A gay couple has married in a lavish public ceremony in Myanmar, in an event said to be the first of its kind.

The marriage does not enjoy any legal status but followed the customs of other Myanmar weddings.

Dressed in matching traditional Myanmar clothes and garlanded with jasmine, Tin Ko Ko, 38, and Myo Min Htet, 28, exchanged rings in an upmarket Yangon hotel.

The two men arrived in solemn procession followed by six groomsmen in front of some 200 guests.

"My family accepted me," Tin Ko Ko said.

"I am so glad that my parents were understanding... but he had to overcome many difficulties from his family."

The pair, who both work for rights groups, have lived together for 10 years without publicly declaring their relationship.

"We both tried hard to make this a reality," Myo Min Htet said.

"I am almost speechless, I am so happy."

It's a sign of the rapidly changing social norms in the conservative nation.

The marriage won't enjoy legal status but the event was photographed and splashed across the front pages of several local newspapers.

"This is like a challenge to our neighbours, who do not understand us and see us as very strange people," said Aung Myo Min, from the rights group Equality Myanmar.

Same sex relations are criminalised in Myanmar although the law is not strictly enforced.

Quote from: Sheilbh on March 04, 2014, 08:46:24 PM
Also well done Burma for having an attractive couple as your first same-sex union, instead of the usual worthy 80 year olds :P

Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2014, 08:55:43 PM
Why did he cry?

Quote from: Caliga on March 04, 2014, 09:00:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2014, 08:55:43 PM
Why did he cry?

I watched it a while back, but I think he broke down when he said that he prayed over what to do but in the end decided that he could not defend a law that supports discrimination.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 04, 2014, 10:33:14 PM
:yeahright:

Cal said he prayed over what to do, i.e., he was looking for guidance, not for help being bigoted.

Quote from: Caliga on March 05, 2014, 03:54:40 PM
I guess that could be correct, but otherwise he was probably reacting to the stress he was under to do something that he, a well educated and intelligent man (BA, Duke University, JD, George Washington University) knew was wrong but felt compelled to pretend to entertain anyway.  Further, as a Catholic I doubt he's very religious and obviously every politician here has to pretend to be a religious nut to have any prayer of being elected, so I would imagine that is something of a source of cognitive dissonance for him.

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 11:40:27 AM
Lovely that the Kentucky governor is going to hire other counsel.

Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2014, 11:40:27 AM
Lovely that the Kentucky governor is going to hire other counsel.

Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2014, 09:05:02 PM
So he prayed to be bigoted and God failed him?

QuoteThe Law Society of Upper Canada has requested submissions in connection with its consideration of the application of Trinity Western University ("TWU") for accreditation of its proposed law school. TWU is a private Christian faith-based university in British Columbia and intends to offer a law school program commencing in September 2015. In December 2013, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada determined that the proposed law program met the national requirement, which establishes the knowledge and skills that all applicants for entry to the bar admission programs of the law societies in the Canadian common law jurisdictions must possess. Now it falls to each provincial law society to decide whether to accredit TWU's proposed law school and licence its graduates to practice law. Attendance at an accredited law school is a prerequisite to licensure to practice law in Ontario.

The issue of concern to the Law Society is the "Community Covenant Agreement" (the "Covenant") which all TWU students, faculty and staff are required to sign. It requires adherence to a code of conduct which, among other things, requires abstention from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman". The Covenant discriminates against members of the LGBTQ community, unmarried persons and members of certain religious groups. If accreditation were granted, the effect of the Covenant would be to exclude such persons from a portion of the limited number of places available at accredited law schools for those persons who wish to qualify to practice law in Ontario.

The Advocates' Society established a task force to consider whether TAS should make a submission to the Law Society and, if so, what that submission ought to be. The recommendation of the task force, approved by TAS' Board of Directors, is that TAS ask that the Law Society not approve the application for accreditation by TWU. Amongst other things, TAS' submission notes that:

   (1) the legislation governing the Law Society requires that in carrying out its duties, the Law Society "advance the cause of justice and the rule of law" and "protect the public interest" and
   
   (2) the Law Society's Rules of Professional Conduct require members to "respect the dignity and worth of all persons and treat all persons equally without discrimination".

As TWU's proposed law school discriminates in the granting of admission on prohibited grounds, by virtue of the Covenant, TAS believes it would be inappropriate for the Law Society to grant TWU's application for accreditation.

The full submission of The Advocates' Society to the Law Society is available by clicking here.

Quote from: Valmy on April 01, 2014, 04:31:58 PM
Eh like anybody has time for sexual intimacy in law school anyway.

Quote from: garbon on March 04, 2014, 09:05:02 PMSo he prayed to be bigoted and God failed him?

Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2014, 04:40:17 PM
Eh - we have all sorts of religious post-secondary institutions in this country that no one has ever been bothered about.  I can't see why having an evangelical law school is any worse than any other sort.

Now, whether BC needs 4 law schools is a whole different question...

Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2014, 08:45:12 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2014, 04:40:17 PM
Eh - we have all sorts of religious post-secondary institutions in this country that no one has ever been bothered about.  I can't see why having an evangelical law school is any worse than any other sort.

Now, whether BC needs 4 law schools is a whole different question...

The notion (agree with it or not) is that law is different - it is supposed to be 'about' upholding the basic values of our society, in a way that (say) dentistry or math is not. Thus, a law school that requires students to sign a pledge that is inimical to those values should not be accredited.

QuoteWhereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

QuoteNothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.

QuoteThis is not the first time TWU's educational programs have been the subject of controversy. In 2001, TWU and the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) took their dispute over BCCT's refusal to approve TWU's teacher training program to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). BCCT's refusal was based on the fact that TWU required its students and staff to agree that they would not engage in "sexual sins," including homosexual behaviour.

A majority of the SCC found that BCCT's refusal to approve the teacher education program unreasonable. According to the majority of the SCC, BCCT did not properly consider the competing human rights involved when it assessed TWU's restrictions on student behaviour. BCCT failed to consider the right to freedom of religion under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in making its decision.

The SCC made the following observations about BCCT's decision:

-  There was no evidence that graduates of TWU's teaching program would discriminate against LGBTQ individuals when they became teachers.
-  BCCT did not require public universities to screen out applicants who held discriminatory views.
-  TWU fell under the exemption created by section 41 of B.C.'s Human Rights Code (the Code).

The SCC did find that LGBTQ students could sign the Community Covenant Agreement only "at great personal cost," recognizing that prohibiting same‑sex sexual intimacy meant, de facto, that TWU prohibited LGBTQ students.

QuoteThere is something fundamentally unjust in giving an institution, which actively discriminates against an identifiable group based on a Charter-protected identity, access to a licensing regime that should be open to all individuals, equally.   

TWU should not be prevented from carrying out educational programs in a religious context. But, in view of balancing competing human rights instead of creating a hierarchy, a line should be drawn where those educational programs are designed to provide access to a public licensing process that is bound by the Charter. The BCCT decision did not consider this broader public policy perspective.

Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2014, 09:18:35 AM

Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2014, 08:45:12 AM

Quote from: Barrister on April 01, 2014, 04:40:17 PM
Eh - we have all sorts of religious post-secondary institutions in this country that no one has ever been bothered about.  I can't see why having an evangelical law school is any worse than any other sort.

Now, whether BC needs 4 law schools is a whole different question...

The notion (agree with it or not) is that law is different - it is supposed to be 'about' upholding the basic values of our society, in a way that (say) dentistry or math is not. Thus, a law school that requires students to sign a pledge that is inimical to those values should not be accredited.

Except that:

QuoteWhereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

TWU already went through this fight when they were accredited to teach education - and surely teachers are "about upholding the basic values of society" in an even more significant way than lawyers.

I see this as a Vikingesque anti-religion fight - nothing more.

QuoteThe SCC did find that LGBTQ students could sign the Community Covenant Agreement only "at great personal cost," recognizing that prohibiting same‑sex sexual intimacy meant, de facto, that TWU prohibited LGBTQ students.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2014, 11:45:31 AM
Canada does everything 10 years late.

Quote from: Barrister on April 02, 2014, 12:50:14 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2014, 11:45:31 AM
Canada does everything 10 years late.

In this case, yes.

Quote from: Monoriu on August 13, 2014, 08:04:29 PM
I saw this thread and thought he is back already  :(

Quote from: Martinus on August 14, 2014, 12:05:01 AM
:hug:

QuoteSun Devils lineman tells magazine he's gay

TEMPE, Ariz. (AP) -- Arizona State offensive lineman Edward Sarafin has told a local magazine he is gay, making him the first active Division I football player to come out.

A fifth-year senior, Sarafin told Phoenix-based Compete, a magazine for gay sports, that he began telling teammates about his sexual orientation last spring.

''It was really personal to me, and it benefited my peace of mind greatly,'' he said in the magazine's August issue.

The walk-on lineman, who goes by the nickname Chip, follows the precedent set by St. Louis Rams linebacker Michael Sam. Sam told teammates he was gay during his playing days, but did not come out publicly until after finishing his career at Missouri.

Massachusetts sophomore Derrick Gordon became the first active openly-gay Division I basketball player when he came out in April.

Brooklyn Nets forward Jason Collins became the first active openly-gay player in one of the four major U.S. professional sports leagues when he came out to Sports Illustrated in April 2013. He became the first openly-gay player to play in an NBA game after signing with the Nets last season.

Numerous other athletes have come out as gay the past couple of years, opening the door for players like Sarafin to do it without much fear of repercussions from teammates or coaches.

''The entire athletics department is extremely proud of Chip and is unequivocally supportive of him,'' Arizona State athletic director Ray Anderson said in a statement.

A 6-foot-6, 320-pound lineman from Gilbert, Arizona, Sarafin graduated with a degree in biomedical engineering last spring and is currently in Arizona State's master's program. He has yet to play in a game, working as a scout-team player early in his career and providing depth on the Sun Devils' offensive line last season.

Sarafin has been involved in research for football-related concussions and has been active in the community with youth sports and the Tillman Scholars program.

''We are a brotherhood that is not defined by cultural and personal differences, but rather an individual's commitment to the Sun Devil Way,'' Arizona State coach Todd Graham said. ''Chip is a fifth-year senior and a Scholar Baller, a graduate and a master's student. His commitment to service is unmatched and it is clear he is on his way to leading a successful life after his playing career, a goal that I have for every student-athlete. Diversity and acceptance are two of the pillars of our program, and he has full support from his teammates and the coaching staff.''

Sarafin also received support from Sam via Twitter.

''Congratulations Chip Sarafin for having the courage to be yourself. Wishing you and your teammates much success this season. (hash)courage2014,'' Sam tweeted.

QuoteDead Teen's Organ Donation Rejected Because He Was Gay

By Mark Joseph Stern

It's a sad fact of life that some of the greatest injustices sparked by anti-gay animus arise after death. The government seizes money that belongs to your widow. The state tries to keep your spouse off your death certificate. A pastor cancels your funeral because of your "blasphemous" lifestyle.

Here's a new inequity to add to the list: The FDA rejects your organ donation—simply because you're gay.

That's what happened to A.J. Betts, a 16-year-old Iowan who committed suicide after a year and a half of ceaseless bullying on account of his orientation. Betts had always hoped to donate his organs after he died, and though some were successfully transplanted, his eyes were turned away and tossed out. Why? According to the Food and Drug Administration, a male donor who has had sex with men in the last five years "should ... be ineligible" to donate some tissues, including eyes. (This policy is especially perplexing given that donors are screened for HIV before any organs are harvested, and Betts was permitted to donate other organs, including his heart.) Because Moore's mother couldn't prove whether Betts had had sex, his eyes were discarded.

The FDA's anti-gay organ policies spring from the same insanely homophobic casuistry behind their anti-gay blood ban: an outdated, utterly irrational belief that all gay men are HIV-ridden disease vectors. Never mind that modern HIV tests can detect the virus from the moment of infectiousness, or that men who have sex with HIV-positive women and sex workers are only deferred for a year—or that a categorical ban on gays is just plain bad science. Other countries may lift their own gay blood bans, and medical experts may urge the FDA to revise its policies. But here in America, gay men's bodies are still seen as blighted, dangerous, and infected.

Presumably, the medical community's passionate opposition to the FDA's discriminatory policies will lead the agency to revisit them soon. Until then, however, people like Betts, who suffered so much pain in life, will have to suffer one more injustice in death. Betts killed himself because he couldn't live with the cruelty he faced due to his sexuality. Now his mother has been forced to carry that burden. It's a tragic situation, a completely unnecessary mess—and a depressing snapshot of gay life in a country still fettered to fears of the past.

QuoteLuxembourg's openly gay Prime Minister Xavier Bettel has announced that he is planning to marry his long-term partner Destenay Gauthier, but will have to wait until ceremonies start taking place in 2015 following the country's Parliament passing same-sex marriage into law in June.

Bettel was speaking to the LA Times when revealing that it was he that had been proposed to by Gauthier, with the forthcoming gay wedding expected to take place "soon".

Bettel was open in giving away the odd detail about his engagement, as he told the LA Times "He asked me, and I said yes. I can't give you the date, because it's not official yet". To his credit, Bettel proved entirely relentless in his right to do as he wishes, public figure or not, as he added "I have just one life, and I don't want to hide my life".

With his ascension to power last year, Bettel has became the world's third ever openly gay head of government, joining an exclusive and pioneering club along with Elio Di Rupo of Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland. However, he was sure to clarify that the success of his campaign did not hinge on the gimmick of his sexuality, as he insisted "But I was not the 'gay candidate.' People didn't vote for me because I'm gay or I'm straight".

Bettel credits part of this disassociation between his sexuality and professional image with the European way of thinking: "I don't know how in the States you think about it, but I think in Europe, what is important is people respect private choices as long as you are honest".

QuoteBettel has became the world's third ever openly gay head of government, joining an exclusive and pioneering club along with Elio Di Rupo of Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 21, 2014, 11:07:32 AM

QuoteBettel has became the world's third ever openly gay head of government, joining an exclusive and pioneering club along with Elio Di Rupo of Belgium and Johanna Sigurdardottir of Iceland.

I don't think Hadrian tried to hide it very hard.

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 10:55:39 AM
Gay-rule and aggressive tax-structuring-supporting tax haven? I think Luxembourg is my favourite new country.

Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2014, 01:36:04 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 10:55:39 AM
Gay-rule and aggressive tax-structuring-supporting tax haven? I think Luxembourg is my favourite new country.

Luxembourg has actually been around for a while.

Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2014, 04:03:08 AMHow silly.

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:00:15 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2014, 04:03:08 AMHow silly.

i know nothing about organ donation, but i recently looked into the ban on gays donating blood. if (1) the technology still cannot weed out 100% of HIV infected blood; (2) 2% of the U.S. population has male-to-male sex, but of all U.S. HIV infections, 61% are from male-to-male sex; and (3) there's not yet a reliable way to weed out the non-risk male-to-male sex participants from the high-risk participants ... then i don't think simply uplifting the ban tomorrow would be a good thing. the FDA seems to be willing to end the ban if it could be guaranteed that allowing gays to donate wouldn't increase the chance of accidental infections.

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2014, 03:10:01 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:18:06 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2014, 03:10:01 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2014, 03:22:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:18:06 PM

Quote from: Jacob on August 21, 2014, 03:10:01 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

How many extra people being exposed to HIV would be statistically significant?

I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

Depends if they can obtain enough blood while excluding those donors or not.

If they can, then the ban makes sense.

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:18:06 PM
I don't know. Do you think it's a valid ban where for a populace of, say, 1,000,000, you are excluding 50,000 potential donors (average gay male populace) because of an increased risk for 2 people (assuming you do not screen HIV in each case)?

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:24:22 PMWe are talking about organ donors.

QuoteAs for blood, wouldn't it make sense to differentiate based on blood type, too? I guess gay donors with 0 Rh- would be more valuable than AB Rh+ yet the policy is the same for all.

QuoteAnd are similar bans in place for other risk groups, such as black females (the fastest growing HIV infection group in the last decade).

QuoteThere is no evidence that CJD can be transmitted from donors to patients through blood transfusions. However, nobody knows for certain that this cannot happen. There is no test for CJD that could be used to screen blood donors. This means that blood programs must take special precautions to keep CJD out of the blood supply by not taking blood donations from those who might have acquired this infection.

Quote from: The Larch on August 21, 2014, 03:12:56 PM
A former Miss Spain and current 1st Runner Up to Miss Universe came out today as a lesbian and announced her relationship with a house music singer and DJ.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famenzing.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2F222.jpg&hash=896685616432530628164e6dca146b3fd29f9ff3)

I thought this kind of lesbian couples only happened in movies.  :P

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:50:43 PM
I don't know if you realise that, Jake, but people in Europe do donate blood - and not all of them are recent immigrants from other continents. So surely someone is in the wrong here. ;)

QuoteArguing for an unreasonable policy by saying that other policies are also unreasonable is not really convincing. Maybe Canadians are just nuts?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 21, 2014, 03:51:16 PM

Quote from: The Larch on August 21, 2014, 03:12:56 PM
A former Miss Spain and current 1st Runner Up to Miss Universe came out today as a lesbian and announced her relationship with a house music singer and DJ.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famenzing.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2F222.jpg&hash=896685616432530628164e6dca146b3fd29f9ff3)

I thought this kind of lesbian couples only happened in movies.  :P

I prefer the movies that have both partners capable of competing in beauty pageants.  :P

But serious, non-porno depictions of lesbians seem to be pretty consistent that lesbians don't all have the same aesthetic standards as men. So for all we know, these two find each other equally attractive.

Quote from: Barrister on August 21, 2014, 03:54:30 PM
Marti - Jacob is referencing the Canadian Blood Services restrictions.  You might not know it, but in Canada there was an enormous "tainted blood scandal" back in the 1980s.  Many people were infected with HIV and Hep C, a Royal Commission was ordered, millions in compensation were paid out - all of which is what led to the creation of Canadian Blood Services in the first place.

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/canadas-tainted-blood-scandal

So yeah - they're really sensitive about making sure blood is safe.

QuoteBut when you talk about organ donations... given how we always hear how desperately short they are for organs, I'd certainly be willing to loosen up the requirements.

Quote from: Malthus on August 21, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
Can't judge the attractiveness of the woman on top, her hair is in the way - looks okay to me from what I can see, though.

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 04:02:51 PM

Quote from: Malthus on August 21, 2014, 03:57:56 PM
Can't judge the attractiveness of the woman on top, her hair is in the way - looks okay to me from what I can see, though.

The woman on top looks like an ugly blonde Justin Bieber.  :huh:

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 04:01:39 PM
Meh, I don't really have a horse in this race (I had Hep B, so I'm excluded and anyway whenever I give blood for tests, I am uncomfortable) - I just think it's quite unreasonable. The fact that many countries are lifting the ban on gay men donating blood also tells something (or do you find this to be the case of political correctness gone wild?).

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:24:22 PM
And are similar bans in place for other risk groups, such as black females (the fastest growing HIV infection group in the last decade).

Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2014, 04:51:09 PM
Yeah I have never heard about gay men being banned from donating blood in Sweden. Having had sex with men is key AFAIK.

Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2014, 04:52:29 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2014, 04:51:09 PM
Yeah I have never heard about gay men being banned from donating blood in Sweden. Having had sex with men is key AFAIK.

You know, I always forget about straight men who have sex with men. :blush:

Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2014, 04:52:29 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2014, 04:51:09 PM
Yeah I have never heard about gay men being banned from donating blood in Sweden. Having had sex with men is key AFAIK.

You know, I always forget about straight men who have sex with men. :blush:

Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2014, 05:07:04 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 21, 2014, 04:52:29 PM

Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2014, 04:51:09 PM
Yeah I have never heard about gay men being banned from donating blood in Sweden. Having had sex with men is key AFAIK.

You know, I always forget about straight men who have sex with men. :blush:

And celibate gay men.

QuoteLuxembourg's openly gay Prime Minister Xavier Bettel has announced that he is planning to marry his long-term partner Destenay Gauthier,

Quote from: Martinus on August 21, 2014, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: LaCroix on August 21, 2014, 02:35:37 PM
currently it's one unit of HIV risk per two million units of blood. i don't think anyone can say what that number would increase by. it could be increased to 1.2 units or 2-3+ units. if it's the latter, then it's a balance of whether the total benefit outweighs a triple (or more) increase in HIV infection by blood transfusion.

That's exactly my point - I don't know if there is a name for this logical fallacy but if there isn't, there should be - an increase from 0.001% to 0.003% is statistically insignificant.

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 21, 2014, 06:12:47 PM

QuoteLuxembourg's openly gay Prime Minister Xavier Bettel has announced that he is planning to marry his long-term partner Destenay Gauthier,

Isn't he white? :hmm:

Quote from: The Brain on August 21, 2014, 04:51:09 PM
Yeah I have never heard about gay men being banned from donating blood in Sweden. Having had sex with men is key AFAIK.

Quote from: The Brain on August 22, 2014, 01:03:03 AM
Sweaty men being men together.

Quote from: Tonitrus on August 21, 2014, 06:12:47 PM

QuoteLuxembourg's openly gay Prime Minister Xavier Bettel has announced that he is planning to marry his long-term partner Gauthier Destenay,

QuoteCatholic cardinal: gay couples 'irresponsible' for wanting children

A senior Catholic cardinal has called gay couples who wish to have children "irresponsible" and said they are undermining traditional families.

Speaking at a meeting of bishops in Italy, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco claimed that all children "have a right to a mother and a father" and that same-sex parents "weaken the family by creating new forms".

He added that gay marriage "only confuses people and has the effect of being a sort of Trojan horse, undermining culturally and socially the core of humanity".

The traditional family is "the stronghold of our country: the charitable, moral and material net that protects people from feeling abandoned and alone", he said.

These comments come not long after controversy surrounding gay marriage in Italy. The Mayor of Rome defied the national ban on same-sex marriage by registering 16 gay couples who had married in other countries. The move was condemned by politicians and religious leaders alike.

Additionally, the Pope held the Synod of Bishops earlier this year to discuss the church's response to issues like gay marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Pope Francis has courted controversy since his election by appearing to soften the position of the Catholic Church on such matters. He famously said of gay people: "Who am I to judge?" when questioned by the press in 2013.

Despite social attitudes regarding same-sex marriage progressing very rapidly, there are still a number of public figures who are extremely resistant to its acceptance. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy called it "humiliating" in his first television interview since his return to national politics.

Quote from: celedhring on November 13, 2014, 07:20:05 AM
So, apparently we are the least homophobic country in the world:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B06tYjLCAAAvRNw.png)

At least there's something we do well...

Quote from: Syt on November 13, 2014, 08:04:09 AM
Italian head of bishop's conference: "Gay parents undermine the core of humanity!"

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2014/11/13/catholic-cardinal-gay-couples-irresponsible-for-wanting-children/

QuoteCatholic cardinal: gay couples 'irresponsible' for wanting children

A senior Catholic cardinal has called gay couples who wish to have children "irresponsible" and said they are undermining traditional families.

Speaking at a meeting of bishops in Italy, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco claimed that all children "have a right to a mother and a father" and that same-sex parents "weaken the family by creating new forms".

He added that gay marriage "only confuses people and has the effect of being a sort of Trojan horse, undermining culturally and socially the core of humanity".

The traditional family is "the stronghold of our country: the charitable, moral and material net that protects people from feeling abandoned and alone", he said.

These comments come not long after controversy surrounding gay marriage in Italy. The Mayor of Rome defied the national ban on same-sex marriage by registering 16 gay couples who had married in other countries. The move was condemned by politicians and religious leaders alike.

Additionally, the Pope held the Synod of Bishops earlier this year to discuss the church's response to issues like gay marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Pope Francis has courted controversy since his election by appearing to soften the position of the Catholic Church on such matters. He famously said of gay people: "Who am I to judge?" when questioned by the press in 2013.

Despite social attitudes regarding same-sex marriage progressing very rapidly, there are still a number of public figures who are extremely resistant to its acceptance. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy called it "humiliating" in his first television interview since his return to national politics.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 08:30:40 AM
And Pakistan is the country with most google searches for 'man fucking man' :lol:

Quote from: celedhring on November 13, 2014, 09:38:10 AM
The percentage of homophobia for the US roughly corresponds to the % of people living in Southern States  :hmm:

Quote from: celedhring on November 13, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
I was being slightly facetious, but I wonder how much the Bible Belt tilts the scales for them.

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 10:04:16 AM

Quote from: celedhring on November 13, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
I was being slightly facetious, but I wonder how much the Bible Belt tilts the scales for them.

Oh probably a lot. But I think this is more an age issue at the moment.

What I find curious is what the different between "acceptable" and "not a moral issue" is?

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 10:04:16 AM
What I find curious is what the different between "acceptable" and "not a moral issue" is?

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 13, 2014, 10:09:09 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 10:04:16 AM

Quote from: celedhring on November 13, 2014, 09:58:26 AM
I was being slightly facetious, but I wonder how much the Bible Belt tilts the scales for them.

Oh probably a lot. But I think this is more an age issue at the moment.

What I find curious is what the different between "acceptable" and "not a moral issue" is?

I don't find the sexual orientation to be acceptable or unacceptable, I simply don't care who you enjoy having sex with or build relationship with.

I think, coming from a Canadian, the country with the most "not a moral issue".

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 13, 2014, 10:11:21 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 10:04:16 AM
What I find curious is what the different between "acceptable" and "not a moral issue" is?

I think most of my friends would say it's not even a moral issue. I would.

It's the difference between tolerance (:bleeding:) and acceptance.

Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
For me "tolerate" has always had a dash of "I'll put up with it, but it isn't really how I'd have things work in an ideal world."

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 09:45:55 AM
Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming.

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 10:18:09 AM
Yeah, that's my point that it could be interpreted differently by different people.

I can see someone saying that "acceptable" is more "gay friendly" than "not a moral issue" - for example, someone may have strong views about the right and wrong of relationships, and think that gay relationships are right, not wrong - whereas someone who has a "not a moral issue" approach could simply not care one way or the other.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 10:40:08 AM
You are the only person left in the world who still thinks Shepard was killed because he was gay.

Quote from: Jacob on November 13, 2014, 12:48:40 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 10:40:08 AM
You are the only person left in the world who still thinks Shepard was killed because he was gay.

I thought so too.

If that wasn't the reason, why was he killed?

QuoteAaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, now doing life for murder, were not homophobes, writes Jimenez. Shepard was lured from a bar, then driven to the outskirts of Laramie, Wyo., where he was robbed. McKinney savagely pistol-whipped Shepard with the barrel of a .357 Magnum. The men then hung him, barefoot, freezing and barely alive, on a fence, in a pose resembling a crucifixion. He died six days later.

But McKinney was no stranger. Strung out on meth for a week before the slaying, writes Jimenez, McKinney likely had been Shepard's gay or bisexual lover.

"To understand who Matthew really was," Jimenez said, "to alter our perception of him as a martyr and an icon, is not going to be damaging to gay rights.

QuoteWhat if nearly everything you thought you knew about Matthew Shepard's murder was wrong? What if our most fiercely held convictions about the circumstances of that fatal night of October 6, 1998, have obscured other, more critical, aspects of the case? How do people sold on one version of history react to being told that facts are slippery — that thinking of Shepard's murder as a hate crime does not mean it was a hate crime? And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?

None of this is idle speculation; it's the fruit of years of dogged investigation by journalist Stephen Jimenez, himself gay. In the course of his reporting, Jimenez interviewed over 100 subjects, including friends of Shepard and of his convicted killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, as well as the killers themselves (though by the book's end you may have more questions than answers about the extent of Henderson's complicity).  In the process, he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard's sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe.

Of course, none of what Jimenez discovered changes the fact that Shepard was horribly murdered, but it may change how we interpret his murder. For many of us, the crime was not simply one family's tragedy — it symbolized our vulnerable, uncertain place in the world. For many heterosexuals it challenged the myth of America as a guarantor of equality and liberty.

All that soul-searching may have felt necessary, especially in light of the legislation the case inspired, but was it helpful in getting at the truth? Or did our need to make a symbol of Shepard blind us to a messy, complex story that is darker and more troubling than the established narrative?

In The Book of Matt, Jimenez examines the laudable, if premature, effort on the part of two of Shepard's friends to alert the media to what they believed to be a crime of hate. At the time, Shepard was still fighting for his life. By the time he died, five days later, the question had been firmly settled, as news reporters and gay organizations like GLAAD rushed in. As JoAnn Wypijewski wrote in a brilliant 1999 piece for Harper's Magazine, "Press crews who had never before and have not since lingered over gruesome murders of homosexuals came out in force, reporting their brush with a bigotry so poisonous it could scarcely be imagined."

Add to that a president who needed to expiate his sins against the LGBT community, still recoiling from the double whammy of DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell," and Shepard's posthumous status as gay martyr was sealed. The defendants didn't aid themselves by claiming they'd lured Shepard into their car and then flipped out when he came on to them. 

But in what circumstances does someone slam a seven-inch gun barrel into their victim's head so violently as to crush his brain stem? That's not just flipping out, that's psychotic — literally psychotic, to anyone familiar with the long-term effects of methamphetamine. In court, both the prosecutor and the plaintiffs had compelling reasons to ignore this thread, but for Jimenez it is the central context for understanding not only the brutality of the crime but the milieu in which both Shepard and McKinney lived and operated.

By several accounts, McKinney had been on a meth bender for five days prior to the murder, and spent much of October 6 trying to find more drugs. By the evening he was so wound up that he attacked three other men in addition to Shepard. Even Cal Rerucha, the prosecutor who had pushed for the death sentence for McKinney and Henderson, would later concede on ABC's 20/20 that "it was a murder that was driven by drugs."
No one was talking much about meth abuse in 1998, though it was rapidly establishing itself in small-town America, as well as in metropolitan gay clubs, where it would leave a catastrophic legacy. In Wyoming in the late 1990s, eighth graders were using meth at a higher rate than 12th graders nationwide. It's hardly surprising to learn from Jimenez that Shepard was also a routine drug user, and — according to some of his friends — an experienced dealer. (Although there is no real evidence for supposing that Shepard was using drugs himself on the night of his murder).

Despite the many interviews, Jimenez does not entirely resolve the true nature of McKinney's relationship to Shepard, partly because of his unreliable chief witness. McKinney presents himself as a "straight hustler" turning tricks for money or drugs, but others characterize him as bisexual. A former lover of Shepard's confirms that Shepard and McKinney had sex while doing drugs in the back of a limo owned by a shady Laramie figure, Doc O'Connor. Another subject, Elaine Baker, tells Jimenez that Shepard and McKinney were friends who had been in sexual threesome with O'Connor. A manager of a gay bar in Denver recalls seeing photos of McKinney and Henderson in the papers and recognizing them as patrons of his bar. He recounts his shock at realizing "these guys who killed that kid came from inside our own community."

Not everyone is interested in hearing these alternative theories. When 20/20 engaged Jimenez to work on a segment revisiting the case in 2004, GLAAD bridled at what the organization saw as an attempt to undermine the notion that anti-gay bias was a factor; Moises Kaufman, the director and co-writer of The Laramie Project, denounced it as "terrible journalism," though the segment went on to win an award from the Writers Guild of America for best news analysis of the year.

There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn't mean we have to hold on to them once they've outlived their usefulness. In his book, Flagrant Conduct, Dale Carpenter, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, similarly unpicks the notorious case of Lawrence v. Texas, in which the arrest of two men for having sex in their own bedroom became a vehicle for affirming the right of gay couples to have consensual sex in private. Except that the two men were not having sex, and were not even a couple. Yet this non-story, carefully edited and taken all the way to the Supreme Court, changed America.

In different ways, the Shepard story we've come to embrace was just as necessary for shaping the history of gay rights as Lawrence v. Texas; it galvanized a generation of LGBT youth and stung lawmakers into action. President Obama, who signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, named for Shepard and James Byrd Jr., into law on October 28, 2009, credited Judy Shepard for making him "passionate" about LGBT equality.

There are obvious reasons why advocates of hate crime legislation must want to preserve one particular version of the Matthew Shepard story, but it was always just that — a version. Jimenez's version is another, more studiously reported account, but he is not the first to challenge the popular mythology. Way back in 1999, Wypijewski rejected what she called the "quasi-religious characterizations of Matthew's passion, death, and resurrection as patron saint of hate-crime legislation" in favor of what she called "wussitude" — a culture of "compulsory heterosexuality" that teaches young men how to pass as men, unfeeling, benumbed, primed to cloak any vulnerability in violence.

It was Wypijewski, too, who wondered if Price — the star witness — simply thought she was helping out her boyfriend when she told the press that he and Henderson "just wanted to beat [Shepard] up bad enough to teach him a lesson not to come on to straight people." If you thought gay panic was a better defense than a drug-fueled rampage, wouldn't you, perhaps, go with it?

Jimenez is less interested in that kind of social analysis, but what's striking throughout his book is how desperate McKinney is to refute allegations that he is gay or bisexual — even at the expense of undermining his own case. Whether it was a hate crime, a drug crime, or a combination of the two, it's hard to shake the suspicion that self-hate and a misguided culture of masculinity, which taught McKinney to abhor in himself what Shepard had learned to embrace, was as complicit as anything else in the murder of Matthew Shepard.

That is, of course, a kind of hate crime — just not as straightforward as the one we've embraced all these years.

Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2014, 12:56:53 PM
For myself, it is muddy enough that I don't know I would want to use him as a champion for anything - nor do we really need to. Enough gay people have been killed/beaten for what are unambiguous hate crimes that we don't really need a poster boy.

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
So, if an act of anti-gay violence is committed by someone who is a self-hating closeted gay himself, the act is no longer homophobic?  :hmm:

Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2014, 01:23:26 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
So, if an act of anti-gay violence is committed by someone who is a self-hating closeted gay himself, the act is no longer homophobic?  :hmm:

Not as that phrase is usually understood, no.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 01:27:58 PM
Was Shepherd's murder an act of anti-gay violence?  I thought his being gay had nothing to do with it.

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 01:30:32 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 13, 2014, 01:27:58 PM
Was Shepherd's murder an act of anti-gay violence?  I thought his being gay had nothing to do with it.

The article garbon posted posits the killer was his gay lover. That does not necessarily exclude the possibility this was a case of gay bashing. In fact, a lot of gay bashing happens after actual sex.

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 01:26:02 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 13, 2014, 01:23:26 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 13, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
So, if an act of anti-gay violence is committed by someone who is a self-hating closeted gay himself, the act is no longer homophobic?  :hmm:

Not as that phrase is usually understood, no.

I disagree. In fact I thought it was pretty common knowledge that a lot of homophobic acts are committed by closeted gays in self denial.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 13, 2014, 01:41:26 PM
Article made it sound to me like he was after drug money and killed Shepard cause he didn't have any/wouldn't give it to him. /shrug

Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2014, 10:16:33 AM
Apparently, there'll be a new radio station in Montreal, for gays, that plays only music made by gays, or friends of gays.
So Madonna and Britney are in because they kissed on stage.  Lady Gaga is in because she is "supportive" of LGBT rights.
Local gay artists will be played on this radio.  Hetero artists who never kissed someone of the same gender are most likely out.

I wonder how it will play.

Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2014, 10:16:33 AM
Apparently, there'll be a new radio station in Montreal, for gays, that plays only music made by gays, or friends of gays.
So Madonna and Britney are in because they kissed on stage.  Lady Gaga is in because she is "supportive" of LGBT rights.
Local gay artists will be played on this radio.  Hetero artists who never kissed someone of the same gender are most likely out.

I wonder how it will play.

Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2014, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2014, 10:16:33 AM
Apparently, there'll be a new radio station in Montreal, for gays, that plays only music made by gays, or friends of gays.
So Madonna and Britney are in because they kissed on stage.  Lady Gaga is in because she is "supportive" of LGBT rights.
Local gay artists will be played on this radio.  Hetero artists who never kissed someone of the same gender are most likely out.

I wonder how it will play.

Can't imagine there is a big enough audience of gays who care more about exclusivity than about playing whatever music they want to hear.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2014, 10:28:32 AM
Yeah seems like it would only be of interest to those gays interested in forming a completely separate society.  Maybe Montreal has a high proportion of those? :D

Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2014, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: viper37 on November 14, 2014, 10:16:33 AM
Apparently, there'll be a new radio station in Montreal, for gays, that plays only music made by gays, or friends of gays.
So Madonna and Britney are in because they kissed on stage.  Lady Gaga is in because she is "supportive" of LGBT rights.
Local gay artists will be played on this radio.  Hetero artists who never kissed someone of the same gender are most likely out.

I wonder how it will play.

Can't imagine there is a big enough audience of gays who care more about exclusivity than about playing whatever music they want to hear.

Quote from: Maximus on November 14, 2014, 03:57:44 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2014, 10:28:32 AM
Yeah seems like it would only be of interest to those gays interested in forming a completely separate society.  Maybe Montreal has a high proportion of those? :D

They call it a distinct society.

Quote from: Siege on November 16, 2014, 05:16:23 PM
Gay people suck!

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2014, 05:27:00 PM
Did Dre come out?  :huh:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 16, 2014, 05:38:14 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 16, 2014, 05:27:00 PM
Did Dre come out?  :huh:

Nah that's just what came up when Siegy rolled his "what to post" die.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 16, 2014, 05:38:14 PM
Nah that's just what came up when Siegy rolled his "what to post" die.

Quote11/18/2014

Former 'Ex-Gay' Leader John Smid Marries His Same-Sex Partner In Oklahoma

File this under, "Signs we've almost won."

John Smid (above right), the longtime leader of one of the most prominent "ex-gay" therapy programs in the US, has married his same-sex partner — in Oklahoma, no less.

Smid served as director of Love In Action and spent 11 years on the board of Exodus International. Three years ago, Smid publicly renounced "ex-gay" therapy and came out as gay.

Smid said he and his partner, Larry McQueen (above left), obtained their marriage license in Hugo, Oklahoma — a 35-minute drive from their home in Paris, Texas — before holding a ceremony in Tulsa on Sunday.

"I believe that due to my former notoriety, my marriage will definitely have its impact," Smid told Towleroad on Monday. "I believe it is encouraging for other former ex-gays, and maybe even those who are still trying to hold on to their ex-gay belief system. We think our relationship reveals something very normal, not strange or deceptive gay stereotypes. We have come to realize that our marriage is very much the same as your average heterosexual marriage."

Smid has apologized extensively for his role at Love In Action — penning a book and reaching out to survivors of the program individually. He has pointed out that the leaders of "ex-gay" therapy programs are often victims, too.

Asked whether there are still those in the LGBT community who don't think he deserves to be happily married, Smid said, "No actually, I think that's been worked out, but you never know, there may be some."

Smid has been married twice before — both times to women. He had two children in the 1970s before living as openly gay for several years in the 1980s.

After marrying again and spending two decades in the "ex-gay" movement, Smid said he began to drift away from it in 2005, when Zach Stark, a teenager in Love In Action's residential treatment program, posted cries for help on MySpace.

The posts fueled protests outside Love in Action, as well as stories in the national media. One of the protesters was Morgan Fox, a filmmaker who eventually directed a documentary about the experience called, "This Is What Love In Action Looks Like." Smid agreed to be interviewed by Fox, and they became friends.

After leaving Love in Action, Smid launched his own ministry, Grace Rivers, which now focuses on the gay community. He divorced his second wife in 2011 and moved to Texas to live with McQueen last year.

"I realized this week that my relationship with Larry is a mirror I see in every day," Smid wrote in announcing their marriage on Facebook. "For most of my life, the mirror I saw reflected my mistakes, shortcomings and failures. The reflection I see today with Larry shows me the positive things in my life, my strengths, gifts and talents. I see how I can succeed at a mutual intimate and loving relationship. For this, I am truly grateful.

"At this time our federal government recognizes our legal marriage, our home state of Texas does not," Smid wrote. "However, we hope that Texas will soon accept our marriage as legitimate and legal."

QuoteA bull branded gay, has been saved from the slaughterhouse by charity donations, including £5,000 from Sam Simon, co-creator of the Simpsons.

Benjy, from County Mayo, Ireland, was destined for the abattoir after showing more interest in breeding with other bulls than cows.

Gay and animal rights campaigners launched a joint online campaign to save Benjy. It went viral.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.
'Large lamb'

Benjy's story first came to light when his owner mentioned to friend and local journalist, Joanna McNicholas, that Benjy was not fulfilling his farm role, and would have to be reluctantly sent for slaughter.

Ms McNicholas said: "He looks like a large lamb. He's very gentle and very quiet."

After Benjy's plight appeared in the Connaught Telegraph, it was picked up by the Animal Rights Action Network (ARAN) in Ireland.

The Gay UK, an online daily magazine for the gay community, launched a Crowdfunder campaign to raise £5,000 to buy Benjy and transport him to an animal sanctuary.
Bart and Benjy

In less than a week the campaign has raised over £9,000, including the surprise donation from Mr Simon on Tuesday morning.

Mr Simon was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2012.

He is vegan and has donated to several projects to rescue animals from cruelty.

"All animals have a dire destiny in the meat trade, but to kill this bull because he's gay would've been a double tragedy," said Mr Simon in a statement.

He said he was glad to help "make Benjy's fate a sanctuary rather than a sandwich".
Retirement

Benjy will now be transported from Ireland to Hillside Animal Sanctuary in Norwich, and the extra funding will be used to ensure his lifelong welfare, said John Carmody of ARAN.

Ms McNicholas has not seen Benjy since the the campaign surpassed its target, but his owner reported that Benjy was "glowing" over the good news.

According to Ms McNicholas, the challenge of dealing with gay bulls in farming is not widely talked about. The animals are seen as "no good" or "useless".

Lions, penguins and cheetahs have all been observed to exhibit homosexual behaviour.

Bats are widely thought to be the animals with the highest rate of homosexuality among their male population.

Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2014, 03:38:33 PM
Benji the gay bull saved (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30096906)

Peta, I get it.  But gays as well?  There are people in the world I'll never understand.

Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2014, 03:38:33 PM

Quote
Bats are widely thought to be the animals with the highest rate of homosexuality among their male population.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2014, 04:45:34 PM
What species has the highest percentage of dykes?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2014, 04:40:37 PM

Quote from: viper37 on November 19, 2014, 03:38:33 PM

Quote
Bats are widely thought to be the animals with the highest rate of homosexuality among their male population.

I don't think it's okay for an article to just drop this sort of fact at the end and not go into it :mellow:

QuoteCitigroup Risk Executive Miller Found Dead in New York

By Dakin Campbell, Chris Dolmetsch and Stephen Miller Nov 20, 2014 6:01 AM GMT+0100

Shawn D. Miller, a Citigroup Inc. (C) managing director who was global head of environmental and social risk management, was found dead in his New York apartment after suffering a neck wound, police said.

Miller, 42, was found unconscious two days ago in the bathtub of his Greenwich Street apartment in lower Manhattan with a neck laceration, the New York City Police Department said in a statement. Medics declared him dead after responding to an emergency call at 3:11 p.m. and investigators are waiting for the medical examiner to determine a cause of death, police said.

The New York Post reported that Miller's throat was slashed and that no knife was recovered, leading authorities to suspect foul play. The Wall Street Journal, citing a law enforcement official, reported that police are seeking to talk with a man who was seen in the elevator with Miller before 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 15 and appeared to have a dispute with him.

Miller "was highly regarded at Citi and across the financial services industry as a thought leader and tireless advocate for environmental and sustainable business practices," bank executives wrote in a memo to employees in his division. "He will be greatly missed by all who knew him."

Doorman's Discovery

Investigators didn't find weapons or signs of forced entry, police said. The building's doorman found Miller after his boyfriend said he was unable to reach him, police said.

Miller advised executives and clients on sustainability matters, including environmental and social policies related to industries such as mining and renewable energy, according to his LinkedIn profile. He helped oversee the development and implementation of policies in more than 100 countries.

In 1995, he joined the International Finance Corp., the private sector investment arm of the World Bank Group, where he helped evaluate finance risk in emerging markets, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Miller joined Citigroup in 2004 as part of the firm's project to implement a set of finance industry-developed sustainability practices known as the Equator Principles, the profile shows. He was a recipient of a 2007 Financial Times Sustainable Banking Award.

He received a master's degree in international relations from the Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University and was a fellow in Bengali at the South Asia Center at the Maxwell School and the American Institute of Indian Studies in Calcutta, according to the LinkedIn page.

To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in New York at [email protected]; Chris Dolmetsch in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan at

[email protected]; Stephen Miller in New York at
[email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Peter Eichenbaum at [email protected]; Michael Hytha at [email protected]; Charles W. Stevens at [email protected] Dan Kraut

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2014, 10:10:50 AM
He could have slashed his own throat and still had enough strength left to wash and put the knife away, cleaned up all the blood, and then crawled into his bathtub to die so he didn't dirty the floor. 

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2014, 05:05:52 AM
Incidentally, I love the NYC police's restraint - a guy gets found with his throat slashed and they *suspect* foul play.  :P

QuoteFirst gay mayor elected in Poland

Published 01/12/2014 | 10:36

Voters in Poland have elected the country's first openly gay mayor.

Robert Biedron, who already made history in 2011 by becoming the first openly gay politician in parliament, was elected mayor of the small city of Slupsk in northern Poland.

Results have been released of the run-off race, which took place on Sunday.

The elections for regional parliaments and municipal government saw a record number of openly gay candidates, though none of the others won seats. Most of them are young and making their first runs for office, and they mostly represented left-wing parties that did poorly. The elections took place in two rounds over two weeks.

QuoteSlupsk gains Poland's first openly gay mayor?

01.12.2014 10:32

Robert Biedron, an LGBT campaigner and member of maverick MP Janusz Palikot's ultra-liberal 'Your Movement', won the mayoral elections in Slupsk, northern Poland, on Sunday, thus possibly becoming Poland's first openly gay mayor.

The 38-year-old managed to muster 57.08 percent of the ballot (15,308 votes), beating the ruling Civic Platform's candidate Zbigniew Konwinski, who received 42.92 percent (11,511 votes). In the first round of voting on 16 November, Biedron managed to garner 20.34 percent, coming second to Civic Platform's Konwinski (29.09), but beating Law and Justice's candidate Robert Kujawski (18.65 percent).

The result turned heads as previous polls predicted that Konwinski and Kujawski would go head-to-head in the second round. Robert Biedron is a graduate of political and social science from the University of Warmia and Mazuria in Olsztyn, and is better known for setting up and running the Campaign Against Homophobia.

In 2011 he became an MP from the Gdynia-Slupsk constituency, winning almost 17,000 votes.

Speaking to the PAP news agency following his victory, Biedron said that "I will lead a very modest [local government], as this town is modest, as well as being one of the most debt-ridden in Poland."

"The three limousines which are available to the mayor will no longer be mine, as I go everywhere by bicycle," Biedron underlined, adding that he is also to move to the town. (jb)