The Skinny on Political and LGBT News
AFA is up in arms over a scene in CBS show ‘Without A Trace’ where two female cast members embrace in a ‘passionate’ kiss. The kiss is only about 3 or 4 seconds long but of course any sort of homo action is considered offensive by the overly sensitive AFA.
Take a look kissgirl.wmv (Warning: This may be offensive to female homophobes. Men might find it erotic)
The AFA (American Family Association) headed by Donald Wildmon announced on Wednesday that their Action Alerts (calls for boycotts and whatnot) have gotten a face lift. Their new design uses warm colors like red instead of the depressing blue they used to use. But be rest assured it’s still filled with the uneducated diatribe of a group of religious zealots. But lets not judge too hastily….
Moving along we can see the nice patriotic look and feel of the new design. We can appreciate their concern for American Families. We here at GTS hope that more inboxes will reject the messages of hate as spam.
The openly gay city council member, Christine Quinn, said Thursday that she will not participate in any way with the parade due to their repeated exclusion of the Irish GLBT group that has applied to be in the parade every year. “I cannot deny who I am” she says in an interview with the Associated Press.
The Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, supports her in this view because he doesn’t condone exclusion of anyone in the community of NYC.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who will march Friday, again urged the Hibernians to change their stance on letting the gay contingent in.
“I’ve always believed this is a city where all the parades should be open to everybody, and orientation, gender … should not be the deciding thing,” Bloomberg said.
I’m a gay man, and I beleive that we do not have a choice as to who we are attracted to. I beleive, however, we have a choice as to how we want to live: honestly or dishonestly. We can deny our attractions and force ourselves into a living lie and conforming to a societal opinion, or we can be honest with ourselves and follow our hearts to their desires and live happily. That is the only choice that I can personally see we have. The only thing that prevents people from being happy in their honesty are people that want to deny them their personal truths.
As far as marriage goes, it is older than Judaeo-Christian beleifs, however in different cultures and different traditions throughout time, same-sex marriages were performed. So we cannot simply say “this is how it always has been” because it’s not. The definition of marriage varies in many states. Some states have what is called a common law marriage where two people that have lived toegether for a certain amount of time are considered married by the state. And, if these people happen to be heterosexual they are recognized by every state as being married. There was no ceremony, there was no formal recognition through the church. There is a reason that a same-sex couple can’t enjoy this? I don’t think so. The definition of marriage was changed when the government started giving legal status to marriage. Therefore under the current constitiution which allows people to freely exercise religion but does not define what religion or beleif to follow, the definition of marriage under law is secular by nature. If a gay couple wants to marry they should be allowed to go to a justice of the peace and have their marriage performed. If the church does not want to recognize the union of love before God it is thier decision not to. Plain and simple.
You are right, benifits don’t = love, but the union of two souls or two persons who truly care about eachother do equal love. The right and desire to seal this bond is only human and only natural. For America to truly live up to what it stands for “One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” (left out “under God” because that was added in the 1950’s by act of congress, not by Constitution, and does not represent all Citizens as does the Constitution) we need to not relegate any persons to ’second class’ citizenship as we did in the 50’s.
Need we remember that in the 50’s interracial marriage was not recognized in all states, it took a lawsuit in Virginia to change the “definition” of marriage from what the Bible preaches? If we are to rely on biblical principles and practices we are only going to become divided.
Allowing homosexuals the right to marry can’t possibly weaken families or heterosexual marriages. What weakens families or marriages is DIVORCE. I agree that children should have a mother and a father for an ideal childhood. However, we all know this is not practical or possible. There are single parents and communal parenting that happens, as well as parenting by same sex couples. These children function the same as any other and most, do not become homosexual later in life, however they are entirely open to the idea and non judgemental which is actually benificial. Same sex relationships are not procreative, but that doesn’t mean parenting is out of the question. With the amount of children waiting for adoption and the amount of heterosexual couples wanting to adopt we cannot afford to deny these children even the option of two parents of the same sex. It is counterproductive to any sense of normalcy that children could possibly have to grow up in orphanages or foster care.
The benifits of marriage are not only limited to financial and legal points. There are spiritual bonds of unity and love that are ’sealed’ by the union of two persons. People argue that gay couples are more promiscuous than heterosexual couples, this may be true to a point, but from my experience it is because marriage is not an option. If marriage were a reality people would be legally and spiritually bound to eachother and less likely to cheat or bring in a third person. This is a very controversial area because the argument by gay marriage opponents that gay marriage would open the door to polygamy and polyamory. This may be true as well but the Bible does not actually condemn this type of relationship. The Bible actually does not speak favorably nor negatively of this type of relationship so it cannot be discounted as invalid. These types of relationships are just as valid as any other and probably should be allowed as well. However, it is not being pushed by homosexuals, polygamists or polyamorists and in most cases of homosexuals it is frowned upon so this argument by the ‘right’ is not valid at this point, it may be in the future but it is a bridge to be crossed later on.
In short, you have a choice to live a lie or honestly, but not who you’re attracted to. Marriage has NOT always been defined as the holy union of a man and a woman. It is older than Judeo-Christian beleifs. The definition of marriage has changed in our own past against biblical teachings to benefit society and make individuals equal regardless of the color of their skin. Legal marriage is different than religious marriage in that legal status should apply equally to all citizens regardless of beleifs to extend financial and legal benefits as defined by the Constitution, where religious marriage can be limited by the church. Same-sex marriage could actually strengthen the bonds of marriage and family. And while the ideal situation to raise children will always be in a stable female/male relationship, to deny children any parents is much more dangerous than allowing same-sex couples to adopt.
Today Oprah is going to showcase a show that airs on FX netowrks called ‘30 Days.’ The specific episode, from the same guy that brought us ‘Super Size Me,’ is going to place a religious conservative man from the midwest in a very uncomfortable situation, challenging his beleifs on homosexuality. For 30 days, Ryan (pictured on the right) will live with a gay man in ‘the gayest city on earth,’ San Francisco, in the heart of the Castro District. He will have to immerse himself and participate in gay culture making himself, a straight main, the minority. He learns some very important lessons about how it feels to be the minority. He attends meetings with parent support groups and HIV outreach groups, plays on a gay sports team, and even visits a couple of gay clubs. His experiences cause him to change his stance on a few of his issues in a very positive way, and he no longer feels predjudiced by the end.
Check out today’s Oprah and look for the upcoming episode of ‘30 Days’ on FX.
Well, it seems that no one is safe from the Almighty God’s, or at least the wrath of the Westboro Baptist Church, who claim their mission is to merely inform everyone of their sinful ways. And of the least bit, I’m sure that the WBCers know what the Bible says about slandering the Bible. Unfortunately they must have their history a bit mixed up, since the first part of the Qur’an is the same as the Torah, and the Old Testament in the Holy Bible. Oh wait, Mormons too are all going straight to that fiery place known as Westboro B…er I mean Hell because they follow the same holy scriptures.
By the way, what exactly is “circumsion?” And what did little girls do to deserve their mention from the WBC?
With laws in South Dakota, Mississippi and Alabama passing to ban abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened, anti-abortion groups (also anti-gay) get into position to force the abortion debate back to the Supreme Court bench. And they may get what they want. Since the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito the scales on the supreme court have tipped slightly in the favor of the religious right wing groups. here is a statement from the AFA website
“…Focus on the Family Action is commending the South Dakota Legislature and Governor Mike Rounds for approving a state ban on abortion. South Dakota’s controversial new law enacts a total ban on abortion except in rare cases when the life of the mother is in danger. Yesterday, FOTF Action senior analyst for bioethics Carrie Gordon Earll released a statement in response to Rounds’ signing of the abortion ban, saying her group applauds the courage of the South Dakota lawmakers and governor in “acting to protect women and their preborn children.” With this new law, Earll notes, “South Dakotans proudly challenge the U.S. Supreme Court’s political protection of abortion and stranglehold on state policies to restrict it.” The FOTF Action spokeswoman also points out that South Dakota is “only the tip of the iceberg among states actively working to pass such sweeping pro-life legislation.” Several other states are considering abortion bans similar to South Dakota’s, including Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Also, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed a bill banning abortion by a 94-25 margin on March 2; however, since the outright ban proposed was altered to include exceptions for rape and incest, the Senate must approve the changes. However, the legislation is expected to pass the Senate with ease, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has affirmed that, if a ban that includes exceptions for rape and incest does reach his desk, “I suspect I’ll sign it.” “
Now while I agree that abortions are bad, I think women should have more choices, especially in cases where there was rape, or incest invovled. I also beleive that the mother should have a choice when she knows that her child will have problems and won’t be able to function either on her own. I do not beleive that abortions should be freely exercised as they can have dire consequences on the mother, and since it is still a hot debate as to when we can consider the fetus in the womb a life.
Currently the new laws in South Dakota, and Alabama completely ban abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk.
My own statement on abortions that could go either way is, children should not have to suffer for the mistakes or actions of the adults around them.
Well sadly to say this is my first post since my last blog crashed. To remedy this I have moved hosting agent to a much cheaper company GoDaddy. Anyways, I hope you enjoy the new layout and features of the site.
