The Gay Fray

[Asguard]

come on back it up, i have given a good sorce saying there is NOTHING wrong with gay's, lesbians and bisexuals. So i expect more than "its wrong". Come on homophobe PROVE it

 

[Repo Man]

Church Group Offers Homosexual New Life In Closet

"Before I was converted to the light of the Lord, I was constantly indulging my sinful, natural sexual desires," Lindeman said. "But now, with the help of Jesus, all those group gropes in the backs of abandoned trucks near the warehouse district are just so many shadowy memories, fueling so many secret masturbation sessions, followed by paralyzing attacks of guilt and fear, and frantic prayers begging forgiveness.".....

....Unlike during his days of sexual liberation, the act of coupling, Lindeman said, is now a wholesome, maritally sanctified act devoid of any physical pleasure, performed solely for the purpose of procreation, as God intended.

"I feel so much better about myself," said Lindeman, choking back tears.

 

[draqon]

this isn't about being homophobic, gays are a threat to this world because they do not contribute their dna to the human species' evolution as well as spread std's, and more importantly they do not give birth to new families, no new humans are born...this is a catastrophy! How can you not see that?!

 

[Bells]

Hair color? We're talking about gender, and nature has made it quite clear that MALE AND FEMALE are meant to be. You like redheads? Good for you, but they are still FEMALES that's what matters.

If nature had made that quite clear, then homosexuality would simply not exist, be it in the animal kingdom or amongst humans.

 

[drowning cat]

I like me

So tell me if a child that a straight girl or woman or even an opposite sex couple gave up for adoption because they didn't want it or couldn't take care of it, was given a loving home by a same sex couple. Are you saying that that is not adding to evolution. Children need love and support in order to grow into normal functioning members of society( no matter what you say I am a normal member of society and I'm probably more sane than you but I'm gay) How can you say that they don't contribute to the gene pool I know plenty of gay men who have donated sperm and given women who's husbands are infertile a beautiful child I think that is adding don't you? or what about what I'm currently discussing with my girlfriend, being someone who is artificially inseminated is that not a female egg and a male sperm coming together (granted in a little dish) the only thing that is different is that it is going to grow up with two women and I will make sure that it still has male influences in its life. The god that these stereotypical close minded people choose to follow probably prefers when baby's are made in a dish anyway as that way no one would have to have or do such a dirty thing as have sex to do it. COME ON PEOPLE GROW UP. I'm a really nice person who deserves happiness as much as the next person and if I'm happy being with my beautiful girlfriend and raising a child with her then why not. If there was a cure for gayness I would pass, I like me and I'm pretty sure god does as well.

 

[drowning cat]

oh and by the way my mother works with people with sexually transmitted diseases and believe me just as many straight people go to see her as gay people. of course only opposite sex couples or young girls go in with an unwanted pregnancy. you never see gay people doing that. You do know that the other animal in the wild that enjoys sex also has same sex relations that being the dolphin. ha funny that eh?

 

[lucifers angel]

So tell me if a child that a straight girl or woman or even an opposite sex couple gave up for adoption because they didn't want it or couldn't take care of it, was given a loving home by a same sex couple. Are you saying that that is not adding to evolution. Children need love and support in order to grow into normal functioning members of society( no matter what you say I am a normal member of society and I'm probably more sane than you but I'm gay) How can you say that they don't contribute to the gene pool I know plenty of gay men who have donated sperm and given women who's husbands are infertile a beautiful child I think that is adding don't you? or what about what I'm currently discussing with my girlfriend, being someone who is artificially inseminated is that not a female egg and a male sperm coming together (granted in a little dish) the only thing that is different is that it is going to grow up with two women and I will make sure that it still has male influences in its life. The god that these stereotypical close minded people choose to follow probably prefers when baby's are made in a dish anyway as that way no one would have to have or do such a dirty thing as have sex to do it. COME ON PEOPLE GROW UP. I'm a really nice person who deserves happiness as much as the next person and if I'm happy being with my beautiful girlfriend and raising a child with her then why not. If there was a cure for gayness I would pass, I like me and I'm pretty sure god does as well.

i am against homosexual adoption, i think it is wrong, it in MY opinion will sway the child to be homosexual, there is nothing wrong at all with being gay/lesbian/bi sexual/straight i however think that gay adoption both male and female homosxuals should not be able to adopt or get married, it is against pro creation.

 

[Tiassa]

If there was a cure for gayness I would pass, I like me and I'm pretty sure god does as well.

Clive Barker once said, on Maher's Politically Incorrect: "God is happy with my homosexuality."

 

[Asguard]

Im not sure wether to just post this here on in a new thread (if people are intrested i surpose tiassa could split it)

Radcliffe's gay pash and dash

HARRY Potter star Daniel Radcliffe was a little gobsmacked by a lingering man pash planted on him as he accepted a theatre award.

The good-humoured actor was accepting his Best Newcomer award at the Whatsonstage 2008 awards when the show's host, James Corden, ambushed him with a kiss.

Daniel doesn't even try to fight it and he just goes along with it, even putting his arm around the neck of the shameless host.

Watch the hilarious pash here.

Viewed 26/02/08 at 14:00

Now my shock wasnt really about the issue itself. I was shocked at firstly the fact that this would be concidered news at all. However the MAIN reason im posting this is my shock at the title.

Who really cares if a guy kissed him? If he was fine with that then great, why does the fact that it was a guy make it a "gay" kiss. If this was 2 women this wouldnt have even made the news

 

[Norsefire]

If nature had made that quite clear, then homosexuality would simply not exist, be it in the animal kingdom or amongst humans.

It exists as a Human creation. The purpose of an organism is to reproduce, so how can an organism not have that ability if that is the very reason it exists?

 

[Tiassa]

Penguin dreams ... and stranger things?

It exists as a Human creation

Which is why it exists in other animals, right? Primates? Penguins?

But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.

Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.

Wild birds exhibit similar behavior. There are male ostriches that only court their own gender, and pairs of male flamingos that mate, build nests, and even raise foster chicks.

(Owen)

It actually gets humorous, in a way. A bit forlorn, but the human aspect of the story is humorous. This from Germany in 2005:

A German zoo has abandoned a plan to break up homosexual penguin couples after protests from gay rights groups.

The Bremerhaven Zoo in northern Germany had earlier flown in four female Humboldt penguins in an attempt to encourage three all-male couples to reproduce.

The zoo originally defended the experiment on the grounds that the birds were an endangered species. But after protests from gay rights groups, director Heike Kueck said the zoo was abandoning the plan.

"Everyone can live here as they please," Ms Kueck said.

She said it was not her intention, nor was it possible, to separate the gay couples by force and interest them in their new female companions.

She added that the gay penguins had shown little interest in the females, but this could have been because the program was started too late in the year.

Gay groups had protested against "the organised and forced harassment through female seductresses" in an open letter to Bremerhaven Mayor Joerg Schulz and called on him to stop the program.

Zoo keepers discovered that the homosexual couples had gathered rocks that they coveted like eggs and fooled their keepers for years into thinking they were boy-and-girl duos.

The zoo came up with the ingenious idea of trying to convert the males by flying in some exotic birds from Scandinavia. But the boys haven't exactly been fighting for a slice of the female action. On the contrary, they have shown their suitors the cold shoulder.

"The relationships were obviously too serious," Ms Kueck said of the same-sex penguin couples. Instead of flirting with the opposite sex, they seemed to prefer sitting on the stones, which substitute for the eggs they will never be able to lay.

(Hall)

I mean, really, man. On the one hand, it slays me that gay-rights groups protested the "organised and forced harassment" of the homosexual penguins, but it doesn't matter, anyway. Penguin lust? Let nature have its course.
____________________

Notes:

Owen, James. "Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate". NationalGeographic.com. July 23, 2004. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

Hall, Allan. "Zoo ditches gay penguin plan". TheAge.com. February 17, 2005. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/16/1108500150655.html

 

[Tiassa]

News from across the Pond

UK: Tory MP Duncan to tie the knot ... with his boyfriend
Tory leader "thrilled", nudges for an invite

While Dan Savage compares the Tories to the American GOP, and I certainly understand the comparison, it's hard to imagine a prominent Republican entering a union with his gay partner. Of course, this is probably because, of late, gay Republicans have been coming out of the closet only in disgrace.

I mean, really ... could you imagine Mitch McConnell nudging for an invitation to, say, Larry Craig's civil union ceremony?

Anyway, the BBC reports:

Alan Duncan is to become the first Conservative MP to enter into a civil partnership - often described as a "gay wedding" - later this year.

The shadow business secretary, 50, proposed to James Dunseath, 39, a press officer in the City, on 14 February while the pair were on holiday in Oman ....

.... Tory leader David Cameron said he was "thrilled" for Mr Duncan ....

.... Mr Duncan, who announced his betrothal in the Daily Telegraph's Court & Social page, is the first Tory MP to enter into a civil partnership.

"I never ever imagined that one day I would be a beneficiary of the legislation," he said.

"What James and I are entering into is not a marriage, it is a civil partnership.

"You could not find two more conventional people to enter into a civil partnership" ....

.... Mr Dunseath told the Daily Telegraph: "It's just fantastic. We hit it off instantly and our friends say we are inseparable.

"He may be a politician but he's great fun. We both feel it's so right and we're very lucky."

Mr Cameron, who began his leadership pledging support for gay partnerships, said he hoped to attend Mr Duncan and Mr Dunseath's civil partnership ceremony at Marylebone registry office in the summer.

He told the Daily Telegraph: "I am absolutely delighted for Alan and James and wish them all the very best."

(BBC News)

In Oman ... that's awesome.
____________________

Notes:

BBC News. "Tory MP plans civil partnership". March 3, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7274505.stm

See Also:

Savage, Dan. "Gay Marriage News". Slog. March 5, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/gay_marriage_news

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

It exists as a Human creation. The purpose of an organism is to reproduce, so how can an organism not have that ability if that is the very reason it exists?

Here's a rather complete book on the issue which shows you are completely wrong.

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

It is humans who made it a sin. If you believe in God you must believe God wanted homosexual acts to be a part of creation. He made animals that not only have homosexual sex but some individuals who mate for life with members of the same sex in their species.

 

[Tiassa]

California!

California!
State Supreme Court splits, overturns gay-marriage ban

The news is big:

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

(Dolan

The explanation is straightforward:

The opinion explains that the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary to protect all of the rights and benefits currently enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples: permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage inasmuch as same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that are currently imposed on married opposite-sex couples. The opinion further observes that retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples, and may perpetuate a more general premise that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

(Judicial Council of California)

The reaction is predictable:

Today the California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, so-called "same-sex marriage" on Californians, thus totally disregarding the sanctity of marriage and the will of the people ...

Matt Barber, CWA Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said "The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and, instead, legislating from the bench. It's absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there'd be a day when so-called 'same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered ...

"So-called 'same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies.

"If people who engage in homosexual behavior want to dress up and play house, that's their prerogative, but we shouldn't destroy the institutions of legitimate marriage and family in order to help facilitate a counterfeit."

(Concerned Women for America)

Glenn Greenwald attempts a lengthy consideration of the implications:

(1) No rational person can criticize the Court's decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of -- and contempt for -- how the law works.

As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that "marriage" should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state's Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage"?

To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I've written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court's decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure "judicial activism" (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one's preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of "judicial activism" without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of "judicial activism."

(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.

Polls have found substantial support for gay marriage in California, with dramatic trends toward favoring gay marriage. While there was a referendum passed in 2000 limiting marriage only to opposite-sex couples, five years later (in 2005), California's state legislature became the first in the country to enact a same-sex marriage law without a court order compelling them to do so. Thus, even leaving aside constitutional guarantees (which, in a constitutional republic, trump public opinion), today's ruling is consistent with that state's democratic processes and public opinion, not a subversion of it.

(3) Numerous states have already adopted laws declaring that they will not recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Moreover, the Defense of Marriage Act makes clear that states are not required to do so. Thus, those states which wish to continue to deny basic marriage rights to their gay citizens will be free to continue to do so. Today's ruling applies only to California.

(4) The Court did not rule that California must allow same-sex couples the right to enter into "marriage." It merely ruled that if the state allows opposite-sex couples to do so, then same-sex couples must be treated equally. The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the state could distinguish between "marriage" (as a religious institution) and "civil unions" (as a secular institution) -- i.e., that California law could leave the definition of "marriage" to religious institutions and only offer and recognize "civil unions" for legal purposes -- provided that it treated opposite-sex and same-sex couples equally. The key legal issue is equal treatment by the State as a secular matter, not defining "marriage" for religious purposes.

(5) Each time there is a court decision recognizing the constitutional rights of gay couples, all sorts of hysterical political commentary ensues. In October, 2006 -- right before the midterm elections -- the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that its Constitution requires same-sex couples to be given the same set of marital rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex married couples (though it ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it need not be called "marriage").

(Greenwald)

Raise a glass.
____________________

Notes:

Dolan, Maura. "California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban". Los Angeles Times. May 16, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,0,3999077,full.story

Judicial Council of California. "California Supreme Court Rules in Marriage Cases". News Release #26. May 15, 2008. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF

Concerned Women for America. Quoted in Alex Koppelman. "California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage". War Room. May 15, 2008. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/15/california/index.html

Greenwald, Glenn. "California's marriage ruling -- what it means and what it doesn't mean". Unclaimed Territory. May 15, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

 

[S.A.M.]

This is apparently only the second case after Loving vs Virginia to invalidate legislation based on strict scrutiny, on the grounds of equality and liberty.

http://www.slate.com/id/2191530/

 

[Asguard]

I was quite impressed when i saw this on SBS tonight, well done. To bad even our labor leaders are to cowardly to deal with this issue. Though i do admit they HAVE removed the descrimination in finanial, tax and social security laws and some of the states have tried to introduce legislation to alow something like gay marrage but unfortunatly marrage and family law are the provence of the commonwealth in Australia. This means that gay couple break ups have to be delt with in the supreme courts rather than in the family court which is part of the federal court system (and cheeper).

 

[Chatha]

actually that would make it POST-human (or whatever the word is to indicate more than human). It shows that they are moving ABOVE the sex for reproduction drive of our animal selves

What kind of retarded post is this? Do you even have any proof of this? Studies have shown that 99% of gays show signs of deeper depression than homosexuals (you can please look this up). This is because they are going against their primal instinct, which is to reprocreate. Mind you, I have never met a "real" lesbian, the last girl i was with said she was a lesbian(butch lesbian), everybody in my school even knows she is a lesbian, but she wanted to have sex with me. We moved to her room, kissing and all, she really wanted me to do it with her, I tried but she was too aggressive and I'm not exactly attracted to full blown lesbians like her. During the exhausting frenzy she said I was lucky she was with me, I paused for a moment and took a drunken gaze at her through the mirror in front of us, i mean she looked like a dimunitive arnold schwasezznegga. She got mad that I couldn't do it with her and she left, while cursing like a pauper who just got robbed twice in one night. Guys, real gays are not made, they are born. Sex with the same sex is sociological, anybody can have sex with anything, but romance with the same sex is almost always genetical. Mind you I have stopped drinking, at least until I get back to school.

 

[Tiassa]

(chortle!)

What kind of retarded post is this? Do you even have any proof of this? Studies have shown that 99% of gays show signs of deeper depression than homosexuals (you can please look this up). This is because they are going against their primal instinct, which is to reprocreate. Mind you, I have never met a "real" lesbian, the last girl i was with said she was a lesbian(butch lesbian), everybody in my school even knows she is a lesbian, but she wanted to have sex with me. We moved to her room, kissing and all, she really wanted me to do it with her, I tried but she was too aggressive and I'm not exactly attracted to full blown lesbians like her. During the exhausting frenzy she said I was lucky she was with me, I paused for a moment and took a drunken gaze at her through the mirror in front of us, i mean she looked like a dimunitive arnold schwasezznegga. She got mad that I couldn't do it with her and she left, while cursing like a pauper who just got robbed twice in one night. Guys, real gays are not made, they are born. Sex with the same sex is sociological, anybody can have sex with anything, but romance with the same sex is almost always genetical. Mind you I have stopped drinking, at least until I get back to school.

That is, like, so awesome.

 

[Tiassa]

Celebrate with a greeting card

American Family Association to Boycott Hallmark
Wildmon & Friends are pissed at same-sex greeting cards

Update: Sarah Gronberg Kolell of Hallmark emailed The Stranger today to ask that people use a different link to send their comments regarding the new same-sex greeting cards. Try this link for her note to The Stranger and this one to contact the company. Thank you. (Aug. 28)​

The news is predictable enough: Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, upset at Hallmark for issuing a line of cards celebrating same-sex unions, has called for a boycott. In the twenty-first century, though, boycotts might be counterproductive to the intentions of paranoid, hateful zealots. As Dan Savage notes,

Considering the number of companies being actively boycotted or threatened with boycotts by Christian fundies, perhaps Hallmark should launch a line of greeting cards for the CEOs of companies—Disney, Ford, McDonalds, Hallmark itself—that are being boycotted by the likes of the American Family Association. I’m seeing something tasteful on the front of the card, perhaps a photo of a beautiful sunrise, along with the words “We heard you’re being boycotted by the American Family Association…” Open the card and the inside reads: “…which must mean you’re doing something right. Thanks.”

(Savage, "When You Care Enough")

The cards are simple enough—

The nation's largest greeting card company is rolling out same-sex wedding cards — featuring two tuxedos, overlapping hearts or intertwined flowers, with best wishes inside. "Two hearts. One promise," one says ....

.... The language inside the cards is neutral, with no mention of wedding or marriage, making them also suitable for a commitment ceremony. Hallmark says the move is a response to consumer demand, not any political pressure.

(Skidmore)

—or, as Savage points out,

The cards are, of course, ugly and banal, which is as it should be. We wanted equal treatment, after all, not special rights.

(Savage, "Fundy Boycott")

Indeed, it would seem that offering homosexuals the same, generally tasteless bullshit heterosexuals trade on special days is offensive to the AFA. An action alert at the AFA website offers a ready-made email of protest to be sent to Hallmark CEO Donald J. Hall. And over at Slog, David Schmader picks up a note from a reader to use the AFA site to send your thanks or congratulations, as well. This is something I've done in the past (namely to send certain tobacco CEOs my thanks—via Truth.com—for their years of service), and I was in something of a mischievous mood, so I went ahead and sent the note.

I would encourage others to do the same. And if you're worried about the AFA harvesting addresses for spam, just use your spambox. Don't have one? Check the comments after Schmader's entry (linked above) for some notes.

I would have posted my note to Hallmark at Slog, except, like a moron, I didn't keep an original, and copied over the clipboard several times for this post before I realized what I'd done.

Damn.

Anyway, it's somethin', if you're in a petty mood.
____________________

Notes:

Savage, Dan. "When You Care Enough to Boycott the Very Best". Slog. August 25, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/08/when_you_care_enough_to_boycott_the_very

— "Fundy Boycott of Hallmark to Be Announced in Three, Two, One...". Slog. August 21, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/08/fundy_boycott_of_hallmark_to_be_announce

Skidmore, Sarah. "Now on the Hallmark aisle: Gay marriage cards". Associated Press. August 21, 2008. http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080821/ap_on_bi_ge/gay_wedding_cards

See Also:

Schmader, David. "About Those Same-Sex-Wedding-Celebrating Hallmark Cards...". Slog. August 25, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/08/about_those_samesexweddingcelebrating_ha

American Family Association. "Hallmark pushes same-sex marriage". AFA Action Alert. Viewed August 25, 2008. https://secure.afa.net/afa/activism/TakeAction.asp?id=329

Update Link:

Schmader, David. "AFA Protest, Emails and Hallmark". Slog. August 28, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/08/afa_protest_emails_and_hallmark

 

[pjdude1219]

i am against homosexual adoption, i think it is wrong, it in MY opinion will sway the child to be homosexual, there is nothing wrong at all with being gay/lesbian/bi sexual/straight i however think that gay adoption both male and female homosxuals should not be able to adopt or get married, it is against pro creation.

thats stupid. I'm sorry it is.