Periodical Political Post *56
Queer News
- Irish parliament approves civil partnerships bill
- Icelandic prime minister weds as gay marriage becomes legal
- Gay asylum seekers win UK appeal, allowed to stay
- Advance in quest for vaccine against HIW & AIDS
- US doctor claims to have discovered "cure" for lesbians
- ‘I was scared to sleep’: Queer youth face violence in US prisons
Other News
- British surveillance system monitors spoken conversations
- 18-year-old arrested for “selling child porn” of herself
- US police officers taser 86-year-old disabled woman in her bed
- Body scanners at air ports most likely dangerous for humans
- Australia delays internet censorship (incl. gay sites) until next year
- US teacher to girl with Mexico shirt: “What are you doing in my country?”
- Finland enshrines ‘legal right’ to high-speed internet access
Top Story
- Gay Best Friends are this season’s hottest teen accessory
Important sociological journal Teen Vogue has an in-depth and thought-provoking study of a fascinating phenomenon: Sometimes heterosexual females are friends with homosexual males. Though "friends with" implies parity. Let’s say: Heterosexual females have homosexual male friends…
…because it’s trendy!
0
about 2 years ago
The Irish CP bill still doesn’t give the proper right that marriage does or the recognition. sad face.
about 2 years ago
The word ‘marriage’ has become hopelessly entangled in religious/secular debate in the US. Since the religious conservatives have no intention of sharing the equal legal right for two people bonded under the social and legal guidelines, we should remove the word ‘marriage’ from the legal lexicon.
The legal binding contract between two people with all of it’s rights assigned to property and primary access during health issues, death etc. should be available to ALL citizens within the US (I am primarily speaking of our botched system but feel this should go for everyone) under our Constitution that states no citizen will be denied the rights of other citizens. While equity under the law is assumed, it is not a reality but a goal.
If we hand the ‘marriage’ back to the God Botherers, and only use the legal contract calling it something else… like Union or Partnership or whatever, nobody will be happy but all legal rights will then have the chance of being equally served.
All marriages require a license in the US. That makes it a binding contract which requires the two parties go through an intensive legal rendering of that contract when divorce is desired. Why bother with the word ‘marriage’ if it means so much to our religious brethren? As long as everyone must have a license, and the choice of a secular or religious ceremony, the only difference between the US and other countries is the separation of the word ‘Marriage’ legally. Common law ‘partnerships’ would remain as they are, a de facto verbal contract between parties.
Drop the State’s recognition of the religious ceremony and maintain the contract relationship.
Secularism allows everyone to live and practice their beliefs without being constrained (except in their own minds). Remember, our laws are all fundamentally based upon Christian Doctrine. I see no reason why religious folk cannot accept secular as being sanctified by their belief system.
Just a thought on a bright Sun day. Bonum Dieum.
about 2 years ago
This.
d
about 2 years ago
I agree. It’s more about the “separate but equal” idea of having two different words for the same thing than the wording itself. Whether everyone has marriage or everyone has civil partnerships, I don’t care, as long as it’s called the same thing for everyone. If we give marriage to the churches and give everyone a legal civil partnership/union/whatever, I think that would be the best option.
about 2 years ago
I agree partly. The problem is not simply gays’ right to marry but also religious freedom. I agree we should remove the word marriage from legal use, forcing any couple which desires benefits from the state to form a civil partnership, gay or straight. I disagree (not necessarily with you since you never explicitly say this) religions should be banned from marrying anyone other than straight couples, especially if the word “marriage” no longer carries any legal weight. We wouldn’t force a Mormon church to marry two Catholics, a Catholic church to marry two Muslims, a Muslim Mosque to marry two Jews, etc. I really have no idea why religions have so much weight in legal debate.
It’s sort of an interesting situation. All we really need for state recognition is a legal marriage — or civil partnership — but we shouldn’t stop seeking the word marriage on principle that religions are allowed to run amok in our supposedly “separated” governments. Besides that, the word marriage is sort of like a passport and less cumbersome than civil partnership. We shouldn’t give in to their ridiculousness. They should give in to our civil rights.
about 2 years ago
The Tazering incident just shows, as all the others in the past, how police will use/abuse anything to subdue a suspect keeping the principle firmly in mind that “The US is a country of Laws. We don’t need common sense!”
They will zap you with virtually no provocation and claim it falls under self-defence against a ‘perceived mortal threat’. Yeah. =_=
about 2 years ago
Sorry, I think the old lady got what she deserved. You don’t pull a knife on cops. Even if you are lying down. Seems safer and less harmful than pepper spraying her, and trying to subdue her physically could have led to her or a cop being seriously injured or even killed.
about 2 years ago
Criminalising kids for sending pics of themselves is ludicrous.
about 2 years ago
Hmmm. Dexamethasone ‘cures’ lesbianism? Maybe it does, maybe it duzzint, but that’s not the real issue here. For years many gays have insisted that homosexuality is not a choice. Not nurture, but nature. But that opens the door for a ‘cure.’ Modern medicine is relentless in its growing capabilities – we have creams that ‘enhance’ female sexual response and pills that offer men boners on demand. We can even swap genders. Mental issues of behavior, deportment, temper, even not paying attention or being a bit too energetic are now solved. Sexual orientation, if it is indeed genetic or hormonal or some other aspect of our electro-chemical-mechanical makeup, should be an easy fix. Tweak a gene here or there, take a pill, get a shot, and voila – you’re straight. Like the ancient Chinese proverb warns – be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Many gays asked for this, and got it. Hoisted as it were, on their own petards.
As politically incorrect as it may be, I still believe homosexuality is not a simple diagnosis. It is present in degrees in most of us, and may be ’caused’ by any number of factors ranging from nature to nurture, a stage or a phase, circumstance, opportunity, from experience to habit to an obsessive-compulsive behavior, and in some cases, even a sexual addiction. And I also believe it can be a choice based on the emotional or physical satisfaction same-sex relationships give to some of us that heterosexual connections don’t provide. And yes, there are those of us that delight in the differing rewards offered by males and females and have move accordingly from one to the other.
Sexual ORIENTATION implies the possibility of effective genetic or medical intervention, while sexual PREFERENCE reduces sexuality to mere choice, decision, notion or whim, thus excluding the unwanted meddling of physicians, shrinks and Big Pharma.
Are we better off catagorizing sexuality simply as patterns of lust, political or ideological constructs, or as predetermined facts of life? Is sex a required course or is it an elective? I wonder. But then, what do I know?
about 2 years ago
Here’s a straight forward thought for you. If there is a ‘cure’ that implies Homosexuality is a disease.
If you accept Homosexuality as anything less than a natural expression of desire, and see it as a ‘condition’, ‘syndrome’, or other word that designates it as less than a natural expression of human sexuality, then you open the door to experimentation, more radical cures, de-programming (I believe the Fundamentalist Christians have that one down to a fine art), segregation, and de-humanization. It happens in other countries, it can happen here.
It is one thing to debate or discuss the foundations of sexual behavior, and something total different to return it to being categorized as a disease.
All of the disorders you listed are just as prevalent in the Heterosexual population.
Whether it is an orientation or preference, why cannot we just accept that some in our population will be attracted to their same sex and let it go?
Scientists delve into everything to understand it. But people use that as an excuse to demonize it. If there is a true Homosexual Agenda it is to be allowed to be ourselves as humans. Don’t confuse the fight for equality within a prejudicial society with the desire to make all people gay. What a boring world that would be. (my words not yours… aim generally, not specifically)
about 2 years ago
Randyokami: “If you accept Homosexuality as anything less than a natural expression of desire, and see it as a ‘condition’, ‘syndrome’, or other word that designates it as less than a natural expression of human sexuality, then you open the door to experimentation,”
That’s EXACTLY my point. Considering sexuality to be a natural expression – genetic or psychological – invites the obvious conclusion that with genetic tampering and medication it can be influenced. Just like any other natural expression from cancer to premature baldness, flat feet or a big schwantz.
Nobody relishes being any scientist’s guinea pig, and I was simply wondedring that if sexuality returned to being a choice, gays would be immunized against such invasive tampering with their DNA, their brains, or private desires.
Randyokami: “Whether it is an orientation or preference, why cannot we just accept that some in our population will be attracted to their same sex and let it go?”
Indeed, why can’t we? Well, the truth is, most people nowadays do. Even religious people accept this reality, with the gentle reminder that in the infinite, when confronted by God, you’ll be on your own. I’m fine with that.
I never called any sexuality a disease, just noted that any natural condition, beneficial or detrimental, will invite the potential for modification. And I wondered whether that was the better situation for gays to put themselves in. Choices do not have to be defended. Just as society now accepts inter-racial relationships, being conservative or liberal, atheist or believer, finding your happy place camping in the woods or on the Vegas Strip, drinking Coke instead of Pepsi, WHATEVER… would gays have an easier time not saying “my genes made me do it.”
Not that it should matter either way, but in this world, at this time, it seems to many that it does. Science long ago decided that MAN is a territorial predator, a cold-blooded dispassionate killer with no problem even killing his own. But despite our NATURE most of us choose not to kill today, and even not to kill tomorrow. We can be influenced by NURTURE. Science has tried with drugs, therapies, lobotomies, etc to change that essential nature. Communists fantasize about developing the ideal communist man, immune to his instincts. Prison inmates have been experimented on with electric shocks, and a bewildering variety of therapies – all in an effort to change the NATURE of the criminal mind.
Nobody wearing a lab coat and carrying a clipboard works to turn us from Fords to Chevrolets or from cotton to polyester. If gays insisted their sexuality was just another choice, and defended the right to that as any other choice, I wonder if it would be easier to mainstream homosexuality through the marketplace of ideas, rather than through excuses or even real justifications found in the laboratory. Like I said, what do I know?
about 2 years ago
“Even religious people accept this reality, with the gentle reminder that in the infinite, when confronted by God, you’ll be on your own. I’m fine with that.”
But why bring a belief of God into it at all?
If you believe then there is no argument. If you don’t, then it is pointless, even inflammatory.
I have often wondered if Christians truly believe in what Christianity stands for, why it is they cannot accept people who do not?
If you believe you are freed from Death, why fear death at all?
And aside from following the demand to press others into the religion, why it is they cannot just live in a secular society that accepts all religious points of view without trying to convert it to a single religiously based society (a Christian America vs an America of Christians, Buddhists, Jews et al)?
Just asking…. I was raised and confirmed in the church (Episcopalian) and I never did get this whole us vs them bit.
about 2 years ago
Randyokami: “But why bring a belief of God into it at all?”
Because you mentiond Fundamentalist Christianity in your reply. I was just responding to you. And yes, I believe. And no, it is not pointless if I don’t because Christianity is the foundation of Western civilization and it is now, and always be, a relevant consideration when contemplating the attitudes and behavior of individuals, and society as a whole. And no, it is not inflammatory, unless you have a deliberately exagerrated level of sensitivity.
Randyokami: “I have often wondered if Christians truly believe in what Christianity stands for, why it is they cannot accept people who do not?”
“If you believe you are freed from Death, why fear death at all? ”
What Christianity ‘stands for’ is really quite simply put – a Googling of ‘essential Chrsitian Doctrines” will reveal what is best summarized as The Deity of Christ, Salvation by Grace, The Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, and Monotheism. There are secondary and tertiary doctrines, but it’s really just about the basics. Don’t make me post the Nicene Creed. The most important verse in the Bible, among BOTH Testaments, is Genesis 1:1. If you accept that, the rest is easy.
Among the Chrsitians I know, none fear death. Like anyone, I, and they, all fear the potential circumstances of our passing – will we die violently or in pain? In disgrace? Suddenly, without having made adquate preparation? Leaving our heirs in debt or in extremis? What will happen to our survivors? Have they relied on us for care or financial support? What about the dog?
Death is just going home to Our Lord, who, in His personal conquest of death and sin, has made eternal life a certainty for us all. In itself, no biggie there.
Randyokami: “And aside from following the demand to press others into the religion, why it is they cannot just live in a secular society that accepts all religious points of view without trying to convert it to a single religiously based society (a Christian America vs an America of Christians, Buddhists, Jews et al)?”
Who doesn’t “just live in a secular society…?” as far as I can see, we all live just fine, thank you. Needless to say, this isn’t a secular society – it is a profoundly religious society that chose to be governed by a secular Constitution. That way, we CAN and DO accept everyone’s individual belief or disbelief. That same Constitution protects us all from any ‘religious test.’ And, believe it or not, we ARE an America of Chrsitians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and even atheists. Welcome aboard.
As for the Great Commission given to all Christians to evangelize the world, get over it. You don’t have to listen, or conform, or contribute. You’re excused. Free speech, including the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion, occassionally subjects us all to unwanted information. Such as your relentless preaching of Marxism. But heck, that just makes life interesting.
about 2 years ago
Thanks for the answers. I have always been curious on those particular issues.
“Such as your relentless preaching of Marxism.”
One thing… I do not preach Marxism nor am I Marxist.
I understand Marx’s treatise but I would not advocate it.
I do think socialist ideas can work in a Capitalist economy when balanced.
And honestly I am all for a secular government over a religious society. As long as I am not forced to participate in any one religion or have it used as a litmus test for patriotism or citizenship, count me over it.
about 2 years ago
I’ll give you the last word on all of this.
Dude! You and I need to have a few beers together, then go watch a high school wrestling match.
about 2 years ago
This is just one more example of sensationalist bullshit. This treatment is for a real condition which produces physical abnormalities. Just because that condition also might cause hormone induced lesbianism, some blogger starts claiming that researchers are trying to “cure gays.”
I think Josh finds dome wonderful stuff for this blog, including many great news articles. But this is not the first time he’s posted something that blows a tiny detail hugely out of proportion to get attention.
about 2 years ago
Oh the bias.
about 2 years ago
Bias is impossible to lose completely if you hold an opinion. What did you mean? Just curious.
about 2 years ago
This is all interesting talk about trying to manipulate normal biological behaviour. But why is it even an issue to begin with?
I have heard that many government leaders, presidents, dictators, and so on have been brainwashed into the strongly held belief that a fast and growing and infinitly expanding population (think India) is great for the economy and necessary for a great nation to exist. And there seems always to be a link with the government and with the religious leaders to try to promote the same illogical and dangerous message that is resulting in overpopulation, depletion of natural resources, pollution, over fishing, depletion of ground water, an energy crises, never ending wars, and so on world wide. Same sex relationships help resore the problem of overpopulation and incourage individuals to become highly specialized experts in various technical fields because they do not have the distraction of raising a family.
about 2 years ago
I could not agree with you more. Well said. And here are two more thoughts:
1. No human society can exist without homosexuality. That’s always been proven but the religious freaks just can’t/won’t accept that simple fact.
2. While this hasn’t been brought up SPECIFICALLY, this relates to 1: Here in the U.S., our “leaders” are “grappling” with the [to them] strange concept of entirely removing the ban of homosexuality in our Military services. But what [they] don’t seem to realize is this: It is IMPOSSIBLE to have ANY Military service without homosexuality. PERIOD.
about 2 years ago
WOW… all i really have to say is “BITCH, i am not your Louis-Vuitton.”
dear shallow bitch,
i am not you damn accessory, just because no one likes you, is not a reason to carry me as a handbag, fuck you if you think you’re going to. i am someone’s friend based on personality, not homosexuality, I LIKE PENIS! but i am human, i CAN be your friend that happens to be gay, that’s how it is with all of my real friends. lastly, im not some effeminate queen, again i like penis, i dont have flames coming out of my ass.
so as for being your “Kurt” or Johnny Weir look-alike, go die in a fire.
kthxbye,
Ty