Silvio Berlusconi tells Catholics: ‘We’ll never allow gays to marry or adopt’
by PinkNews.co.uk Staff Writer
1 March 2011, 2:20pm
Silvio Berlusconi says his government will never allow gay marriageSilvio Berlusconi says his government will never allow gay marriage
Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has said gay couples will never be permitted to marry.
Speaking at a Catholic conference in Milan, he said: “Gays will never have marriages equal to traditional family values because there is only one family.”
He added: “This government will not allow singles or gays to adopt.”
The 74-year-old leader told the conference he would not resign, despite his own moral troubles.
He has been charged with having sex with an underage prostitute and will go on trial in April.
Police say that Karima El Mahroug, who was 17 at the time, was a guest at one of Mr Berlusconi’s ‘bunga bunga’ parties.
There are also claims that he paid for dancers’ plastic surgeries.
The Italian leader is currently on trial for tax fraud.
Last year, Mr Berlusconi angered gay groups by saying: “I have a gruelling work schedule and if I happen to look pretty girls in the face now and then, well then, it’s better to be a fan of pretty women than to be gay.”
Justin Bieber: being gay is a decision and abortion is wrong
Fresh from winning a Brit award, teenage pop sensation Justin Bieber has suggested that homosexuality is a choice and that abortion is wrong even when pregnancy is caused by rape.
In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, he appeared to label homosexuality as a choice rather than something that is uncontrollable.
He also spoke out against abortion even when pregnancy is caused by rape, saying “everything happens for a reason.”
The interview for next month’s Rolling Stone magazine has been distributed via blogs.
When asked what his views on homosexuality are, Bieber responded: “It’s everyone’s own decision to do that. It doesn’t affect me and shouldn’t affect anyone else.”
It is not clear whether he intended to label homosexuality as a lifestyle choice.
Bieber’s position stands in contrast with that of Lady Gaga who last year said: “there are some people in this world that believe being gay is a choice. It’s not a choice, we’re born this way.” Her single ‘Born This Way’ has been described as the new gay anthem by Sir Elton John.
In his interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Bieber went on to say “I think you should just wait for the person you’re … in love with,” when asked about abstinence.
Despite his strong Christian background he did not argue against pre-martial sex.
“I really don’t believe in abortion,” he told the magazine “I think [an embryo] is a human. It’s like killing a baby.”
He added that while it is “really sad” for a woman to become pregnant after being raped, he claimed that “everything happens for a reason.”
“I don’t know how that would be a reason,” he added. “I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.”
Posted on Advocate.com January 05, 2011
Franco: “Maybe I’m Just Gay”
By Advocate.com Editors
James Franco has played a good number of gay roles, most recently in the movies Milk and Howl—where he portrayed Harvey Milk’s longtime boyfriend Scott Smith and poet Allen Ginsberg, respectively. As a result, he’s faced a lot of questions about his own sexual orientation.
The actor, who told The Advocate last summer that he is straight, is now raising eyebrows by suggesting otherwise in an interview with Entertainment Weekly.
“There are lots of other reasons to be interested in gay characters than wanting myself to go out and have sex with guys,” Franco tells EW. “And there are also lots of other aspects about these characters that I’m interested in, in addition to their sexuality. So, in some ways it’s coincidental, in other ways it’s not. I mean, I’ve played a gay man who’s living in the ‘60s and ‘70s, a gay man who we depicted in the ‘50s, and one being in the ‘20s. And those were all periods when to be gay, at least being gay in public, was much more difficult. Part of what I’m interested in is how these people who were living anti-normative lifestyles contended with opposition. Or, you know what, maybe I’m just gay.”
The Navy officer behind a series of videos featuring simulated sex and antigay slurs will be temporarily relieved of duty as early as Tuesday, Navy sources told NBC News on Monday.
Capt. Owen Honors (pictured) currently commands the USS Enterprise. He reportedly produced the videos, which were shown to the crew of the aircraft carrier in 2006 and 2007, while he was second in command.
Honors will reportedly be relieved of duty while the Navy investigates.
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Va., first published excerpts from the videos and descriptions of their content on Saturday. In one of the videos, the paper reported, two female sailors stand in a shower stall aboard the aircraft carrier, pretending to wash each other. In other skits, “sailors parade in drag, use anti-gay slurs, and simulate masturbation and a rectal exam. Another scene implies that an officer is having sex in his stateroom with a donkey.”
The Navy has launched an investigation into the production of a series of videos containing simulated sex and antigay slurs shown to service members deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CNN reports the videos were reportedly shown to the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise in 2006 and 2007. Navy spokesman Cmdr. Chris Sims called the videos “clearly inappropriate.”
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Va., first published excerpts from the videos and descriptions of their content on Saturday.
According to Time magazine, the man behind the videos is Capt. Owen Honors, who at the time was the executive officer, or second-in-command, of the Enterprise. Honors recently took command of the carrier, which is weeks away from deploying.
In one of the videos, two female Navy sailors stand in a shower stall aboard the aircraft carrier, pretending to wash each other. In other skits, “sailors parade in drag, use anti-gay slurs, and simulate masturbation and a rectal exam. Another scene implies that an officer is having sex in his stateroom with a donkey.”
According to Time, Honors is likely to lose command of his carrier before it heads out from Norfolk.
Watch the video posted to the Virginian-Pilot’s website and an interview with Pilot editor Meredith Kruse below.
Go to this link to watch the video:
I am an active-duty U.S. Marine Corps infantry officer. I have deployed twice to Iraq and once to Afghanistan and have commanded infantry Marines in combat.
On Tuesday, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, said he believes repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allowing gay and lesbian Marines to serve openly could “cost Marines’ lives” because of the “mistakes and inattention or distractions” that might ensue. I am not homosexual. And in this instance, I must respectfully disagree with my commandant.
The commandant cites the importance of cohesion within small combat units and warns against its disruption by allowing homosexuals to stop concealing their identities. In my experience, the things that separate Marines in civilian life fade into obscurity on the battlefield. There, only one thing matters: Can you do your job? People care much more about whom you voted for or what city you’re from while on the huge airbase with five Burger Kings, or back in the States, than they do when they’re walking down a dusty road full of improvised explosive devices in Haditha or Sangin.
In the end, Marines in combat will treat sexual orientation the same way they treat race, religion and one’s stance on the likelihood of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl. I do not believe the intense desire we all feel as Marines to accomplish the mission and protect each other will be affected in the slightest by knowing the sexual orientation of the man or woman next to us.
In the recent Defense Department survey, 58 percent of combat arms Marines said they felt allowing homosexuals to serve openly would negatively affect their unit, but 84 percent of combat arms Marines who had served with a homosexual said that there would be no effect or that the effect would be positive. It seems obvious that if allowing homosexuals to serve openly degraded performance, rather than improved it, a majority of Marines who had served with homosexuals would oppose repeal. Yet this is not the case, and homosexuals serve openly in the militaries of Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel and others with no ill effect. This suggests that much of the opposition toward repeal within the Marine Corps is based on the politics of individual Marines and not any measurable military effect.
Repeal would undoubtedly produce some disruption, but if other nations’ experiences are any guide, it will be so minimal as to be essentially nonexistent. Consider what is likely to happen if and when “don’t ask” is repealed: Lance Cpl. Smith will be having a typical Marine conversation with Lance Cpl. Jones, and the topic will turn to women. Smith will remark on how much he enjoys their company. Jones will reply: “Actually, man, I like dudes.”
Jones: “Yeah, man, really.”
Smith: “Wow. I didn’t know that.”
Both will then go back to cleaning their rifles.
Is it really likely that lance corporals who know each other better than brothers, and may have saved each other’s lives in split-second reactions during deployments, are suddenly going to refuse to serve in the same unit or quit the Corps because they have to share a shower?
Repeal will of course have many effects. Gay and lesbian Marines who are now barred from discussing their identities honestly with their superiors, peers and subordinates would be able to do their jobs free from the nagging knowledge that they are being less than honest with their brothers and sisters in arms. It is difficult to see how this could do anything but improve their job performance. Gay and lesbian Marines have long fought and died for a country that refuses to acknowledge their existence. Some are certainly among the Marines who have passed through Bethesda Naval Hospital and rest in Arlington.
I believe the reluctance many Marines feel about repeal is based on the false stereotype, borne out of ignorance, that homosexuals don’t do things like pull other Marines from burning vehicles. The truth is, they do it all the time. We simply don’t know it because they can’t tell us.
It is time for “don’t ask, don’t tell” to join our other mistakes in the dog-eared chapters of history textbooks. We all bleed red, we all love our country, we are all Marines. In the end, that’s all that matters.
The writer is an infantry captain in the Marine Corps.
Posted on Advocate.com December 15, 2010
Jimmy Carter’s Ready for a Gay President
By Advocate.com Editors
Jimmy Carter is ready for a gay president — and he thinks America could stand behind one too.
The former president told BigThink.com it may not happen in this coming election, but in the very near future, he thinks the country will see a gay president. He says he thinks Americans are making great strides toward accepting homosexuality.
“Step-by-step, we have realized that this issue of homosexuality has the same adverse and progressive elements as when we dealt with the race issue 50 years ago — or 40 years ago.”
He said with the country acclimated to having a black or female president, it’s only a matter of time before it is ready for a gay one.
Read The Full Story Here:
Speedo-wearing Santas ran the streets of Boston, Toronto, Chicago, and Atlanta over the weekend to raise money for various charities.
The event kicked off in Boston 11 years ago and has since spread to multiple cities throughout the United States and Canada. Included in the list of charities the runs raise money for are a number of LGBT and HIV/AIDS research organizations.
Watch video from the runs below.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Three Discharged Vets Challenge DADT, Sue For Reinstatement
Posted by Joe Sudbay (DC) at 12/13/2010 12:41:00 PM
Secretary Gates keeps saying he wants DADT ended by Congress, but we’re still waiting — and time is running out. Discharged servicemembers aren’t waiting. Today, three of them, Mike Almy, Anthony Loverde and Jason Knight, filed a lawsuit against DADT, seeking reinstatement. The suit was filed in California, meaning the Witt Standard is applicable.
SLDN’s press release:
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and Morrison & Foerster LLP filed a complaint today against the United States government asking for the reinstatement of three service members discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the discriminatory law barring gay, lesbian and bisexual service members from serving honestly and with integrity. The filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, also argues the current law and the regulations, policies, and guidance that implement it, are unconstitutional. To read the filing visit: http://bit.ly/eZg5EL
Statement by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Executive Director and Army Veteran Aubrey Sarvis:
“This filing is a shot across the bow as we prepare to pursue and sustain an aggressive far reaching litigation strategy if the Senate fails to act this month to repeal the law. This dispute can be resolved by Congress or by the courts. With this filing we put Congress on notice that a cadre of service members and our national legal team stand ready to litigate strategically around the country. The plaintiffs’ are three service members who want to serve their country again. They represent some of our best and brightest who were fired because of who they are, despite their decorated records. More than 14,000 have already lost their jobs and the investigations and discharges still continue. We are also preparing litigation on behalf of young people who would enter the armed forces to serve our country but for this terrible law. Another suit we’re working on involves clients discharged under ‘Don’t Ask’ who want to enter the reserves or a guard unit, and we plan to file such cases early next year if Congress fails to act. Clearly there is an urgent need for the Senate to act on legislation this week.”
Statement by Morrison & Foerster’s M. Andrew Woodmansee:
“Today we are asking the Court to allow these three brave Americans to fulfill the commitment they made years ago when they joined the military. They simply want to serve their country, and it is fundamentally un-American to refuse their service merely because they are gay — especially when our all-volunteer military is stretched thin as we fight wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Throughout our nation’s history, citizens have turned to the courts to remedy injustices when Congress would not act. If the Senate will not meet its obligations by ending this unconstitutional law, we will ask the Court to step in to protect the rights of my clients as well as all men and women who wish to serve this country in the military.”
ABOUT THE PLANTIFFS:
Plaintiff Michael D. Almy served for thirteen years in the United States Air Force, including four deployments to the Middle East. He is a highly trained communications officer. During his thirteen-year Air Force career, former Major Almy received numerous military awards and decorations. In 2006, he was discharged from the Air Force under DADT.
Plaintiff Anthony J. Loverde served for seven years in the Air Force. He is a trained C-130 Loadmaster and Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory Technician. During his seven-year Air Force career, former Staff Sergeant Loverde received numerous military awards and decorations. In 2008, he was discharged from the Air Force under DADT. He is currently a contractor serving in Iraq, doing effectively the same job with many of his old coworkers, as an openly gay man.
Plaintiff Jason D. Knight served for a total of five years in the United States Navy. He is a trained Cryptological Technician Interpretive, Linguist. During his five-year Navy career, former Petty Officer Second Class Knight received numerous military awards and decorations. Mr. Knight has the unique distinction of being discharged twice under DADT. In 2005, he was discharged from the Navy under DADT. Mr. Knight was recalled to active duty in 2006 but was discharged again in 2007 under DADT.
The mother of Mark Bingham, one of the passengers on United Flight 93 believed to have prevented the plane from hitting government buildings in Washington, D.C., said no one on the plane questioned whether her son was gay when it came time to overtake the aircraft from hijackers. Therefore, Alice Hoagland said, the same reasoning should be the rule when it comes to the military and its ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers.
Her son was eulogized by Sen. John McCain, who Bingham supported in the 2000 Republican primary for president of the United States. Now, as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, McCain is leading the charge to keep the 17-year-old law.
“I hope he comes around on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,'” she said on MSNBC. “I know he’s entrenched in the mistaken notion that gay people somehow are weaker, that gay men are predators, that gay men are seeking a sexual outlet with straight men, and I think it is that kind of misconception that is driving that needless clinging to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.'”
Watch the full interview here:
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter. Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Facebook.
Homosexuality In Leviticus
By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson
The Washington Post
December 7, 2010; 10:02 AM ET
This is the second in a series of articles examining the Biblical bases for opposition to homosexuality by The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire and visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, DC.
First, and most famous, of the scriptural texts used to condemn homosexuality are the two references in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev. 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Lev. 20:13)
The context of these two passages are the holiness and purity codes set down for the people of Israel – rules set forth both to define what was clean and unclean before God, as well as what set the Hebrew people apart from their heathen neighbors who worshiped gods other than the one true God. In a memorable speech on homosexuality at Trinity College in 1992, The Rev. Dr. Frank G. Kirkpatrick put the biblical code in context: This “purity code assumes a ‘normal’ or natural state for things, any deviance from which is abnormal, deviant, and therefore unclean, impure, and polluting. Menstruation is not ‘normal’ for women (since it occurs less frequently than periods of non-menstruation): therefore when women are menstruating they are regarded as unclean. Blemishes [including blindness and lameness] are abnormal, therefore unclean.”
Kirkpatrick further explained: “Men who act like women are abnormal, therefore unclean. Now the assumption here is that to be a man is to desire women. Anything else is acting against one’s nature. Thus when a man lies with another man he is acting contrary to his own nature. It was inconceivable in this context that a man could be genetically or biologically predisposed to desire other men. To be engaged in homosexual activity therefore was to do what one was literally not inclined or predisposed to do. Thus it was acting against one’s own conscience and predispositions. This is what made it unnatural and therefore a violation of nature.”
This is an important point, difficult for the modern day mind to grasp: homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient mind. Same gender, intimate physical contact was not unknown, of course, but everyone was presumed to be heterosexual. In his book Embodiment, An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology, James B. Nelson wrote, “It is crucial to remember this, for in all probability the biblical writers in each instance were speaking of homosexual acts undertaken by person whom the authors presumed to be heterosexually constituted.” Therefore, any man who lay with another man as with a woman was considered to be a heterosexual man acting against his true nature.
The psychological construct of a homosexual orientation was not posited until the late 18th century – the notion that a certain minority of humankind is affectionally oriented toward people of the same gender, rather than the opposite gender. For people so oriented, intimate physical contact with people of the opposite gender would be “against their nature.” Such a possibility was unknown to the ancient mind. And so, these verses from the Leviticus Holiness Code must be read in the context of the assumption that everyone was heterosexual by nature, and acting contrary to that was not “normal,” and outside the will of the Creator.
In practice, we modern day Christians have regarded most of the injunctions in the Holiness Codes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as culturally bound to the ancient times of the Hebrews–but not binding on us. These same purity codes forbid eating shellfish, planting a field with two different kinds of seed or wearing simultaneously two kinds of cloth. They would prohibit us from ordaining to the priesthood any handicapped person – not to mention women. We cannot, then, isolate these passages about homosexual acts and impute to them the kind of enduring authority which we ascribe to nothing before or after these passages. One has to wonder why the biblical literalists who cite this passage against homosexuality don’t seem to go all the way and advocate for death as the punishment for homosexual behavior! We cannot have it both ways.
One other guiding principle in these codes which I presume most modern day Christians and Jews would not espouse is the bias against women. Women are generally regarded as problematic, less worthy, and more unclean than men. A man who had a discharge of semen was ritually unclean until sunset, but a woman who menstruates was unclean for a week. When a woman gave birth to a boy, she was unclean for a week – but when she gave birth to a girl, she was unclean for twice as long! I would maintain that part of what made the sin of a man lying, as Nelson wrote, “with a male as with a woman” so abominable, was the scandal of the noble, privileged, favored male of the species giving up that privilege to take on the role of the less clean, less noble, certainly less privileged female. Indeed it is not extraneous to note that during wartime, a common practice in the ancient Middle East was “the submission of captured male foes to anal rape. It was an expression of domination and contempt, a powerful symbol of scorn in societies where the dignity of the male was held in high esteem. Here a man was using another man as he might use a woman.” Nothing could be worse. So in this context, these injunctions are not surprising.
Finally, there is the context of the “science” of conception of that time. Male sperm was thought to contain all things necessary for procreation. Women contributed nothing but a place for the nascent life to incubate. Therefore, the “spilling of seed” (male sperm) on the ground was a kind of abortion, the killing of life. This “scientific” understanding led to other proscriptions in the Holiness Code. Male masturbation is condemned. And the so-called “sin of Onan” was also condemned. Onan was a heterosexual man who withdrew from intercourse with his wife before ejaculation, spilling his seed on the ground instead of depositing it in his wife’s womb. And God strikes him dead.
Add to this the ancient Israelites’ need to grow the population. Upon their return from slavery in Egypt, they were surrounded by hostile cultures, eager to destroy the invaders who had returned to their “Promised Land.” The Israelite nation needed to populate themselves in order to withstand the challenge to their presence. For a man to spill his seed on the ground rather than grow more babies was not only a sin against God, but against the nation!
Oddly enough, we have relaxed these “rules” against a man “spilling his seed” through masturbation and birth control, yet we hold onto “a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman” as if it were eternally binding on believers. Such an inconsistency simply does not make sense.
Given these changes in our modern understandings and contexts, it is no longer appropriate for us to condemn men who have intimate sexual relationships with other men based on this proscription in the Leviticus Holiness Code. Either all of these proscriptions must be tossed out as binding on us, or they all must be adhered to. Biblical “literalists” cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions are still appropriate.
The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson is the IX Bishop of New Hampshire, in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and a visiting Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, Washington, D.C.
By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson
Saturday, 4 December 2010
4 December 2010
The star of The Truman Show, The Mask and Liar Liar, had no problem with acting out gay sex scenes in the film. He told the Chicago Tribune: “As soon as I read the script…it was a no-brainer for me that I had to do it. There were some people in my life that were saying: ‘You really want to do that? You really want to do that scene? I mean, honestly, that’s going to stick in people’s minds.’ And I said, ‘Exactly. I want to do things that stick in people’s minds.”
The film makes its long-awaited release this weekend in US cinemas, having previously found success at the Sundance Film Festival in 2009 and in European and UK cinemas, and it is being tipped for success at the Oscars.
Carrey plays Steven Russell a gay con man, who falls in love with Phillip Morris played by Ewan McGregor, when in jail. After Morris is released, Russell plots his own escape in a series of desperate attempts to live together freely.
“I think Steven Russell was a man who’s on a journey of love, trying to prove his own worth to himself and the world,” said Carrey. “He’s a rather obsessive character in his approach to things. What I loved about him was that he was relentless when it came to love. He would do anything to get what he needs. He’s broken out of prison several times.”
On the gay kissing scenes with Ewan McGregor, Carrey said: “I just looked at him like a person I love, a person I admire, a person I respect, and a person I needed to fulfill me and make me feel whole, basically.”
Upon its UK release earlier in the year, Carrey claimed in an interview with the Metro: “I don’t really care about the reaction, if there’s a negative reaction. I care about doing a story about amazing, fascinating people.”
PinkPaper.com reported earlier this year that the comedy-drama had its American release date postponed by a US court after a row erupted between producers and distributors.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Taken from New Gay Earth
The Apprentice 2010
Donald Trump disappointed me in a big way. His attempt to ‘Out’ one of the contestants on his show “The Apprentice” created another negative image of Gay men in general and he should be ashamed of himself for doing so.
During the ‘boardroom’ meeting portion of the episode which aired November 4, 2010 Mr. Trump listened as
Anand Vasudev (a 31 year old unemployed entreprenuer and former real estate broker)
suggested David Johnson (a 34 year old unemployed accounts manager and father of 5)
had shown signs of a ‘Man Crush’ for a model their team had used for a photo shoot during the competition. He repeatedly suggested David himself was ‘Gay’ which solicited snickering and laughter from everyone on camera.
Mr. Trump pointedly turned to David and asked him if he was Gay and if he wanted to ‘Come Out’ then and there on the show. David, of course, denied the accusations and reminded everyone he was the father of 5 children to which Mr. Trump and others said ‘that means nothing these days’. Donald Jr. even said ‘That’s so Gay’ during the meeting.
I was appalled by this. This is the atmosphere that Gay men must compete in for jobs in America. The prejudice and hostility that was shown during this episode of The Apprentice was shocking. If Cyndi Lauper had been at the meeting I’m certain she would have challenged everyone for mocking Gay people and for snickering at the idea that David might be Gay. Cyndi Lauper was one of the celebrities involved in last seasons ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ and was claimed as a ‘close’ friend by Mr. Trump. I wonder if she saw this episode and how she reacted?
I really thought highly of Donald Trump prior to this public statement of his homophobic attitude. I have been a fan of his for decades. His appearnces on TV have always drawn my attention. I have never seen him ridicule and belittle someone about their sexuality before. I may have missed the signs of his prejudice before but I’m well aware of them now.
I would like to call for him to apologize for this behavior. I would like for him to state publicly his support for the Gay Community and for the end of DADT. I want him to help us achieve equality under the law and freedom from discrimintation.
If you agree with me please join me in posting a protest of this ‘branding’ of a suspected homosexual at: http://www.nbc.com/the-apprentice/in-the-boardroom/2010/11/week-8/
I posted a protest at that address under the name JL2
5 Myths About Gay People Debunked
Taken From LiveScience com
Animals Are All Straight
Male courtships are frequent amongst these long-necked mammals. Often a male will start necking with another before proceeding to mount him. This affectionate play can take up to an hour. According to one study, one in every 20 male giraffes will be found necking with another male at any instant. In many cases, homosexual activity is said to be more common than heterosexual.
Despite a popular perception that male-female pairings are the only “natural” way, the animal kingdom is actually full of examples of same-sex couples. Penguins, dolphins, bison, swans, giraffes and chimpanzees are just a few of the many species that sometimes pair up with same-sex partners.
Researchers are still mulling over the evolutionary reason, if any, for gay animal sex, since it doesn’t produce offspring. Some ideas are that it helps strengthen social bonds or encourages some individuals to focus their resources on nurturing their nieces and nephews, thus boosting their own genes indirectly.
Or, it may simply be fun. “Not every sexual act has a reproductive function,” said Janet Mann, a biologist at Georgetown University.
Gay Relationships Don’t Last
Another stereotype is that gay relationships aren’t as real or long-lasting as heterosexual ones.
Research has found that to be untrue. Long-term studies of gay couples indicate that their relationships are just as stable as straight pairings.
“There is considerable evidence that both lesbians and gay men want to be in strong, committed relationships [and] are successful in creating these partnerships, despite difficulties created by social prejudice, stigma, and the lack of legal recognition for same-sex relationships in most parts of the U.S.,” said UCLA psychologist Anne Peplau, co-author of a book chapter on the subject published in the 2007 Annual Review of Psychology.
For example, John Gottman, a University of Washington emeritus professor of psychology, and his colleagues collected data from homosexual couples across 12 years, and found that about 20 percent had broken up over that time. That rate projected over a 40-year period is slightly lower than the divorce rate for first marriages among heterosexual couples over the same time span, according to the study published in 2003 in the Journal of Homosexuality.
“The overall implication of this research is that we have to shake off all of the stereotypes of homosexual relationships and have more respect for them as committed relationships,” Gottman said.
In fact, the same study found that gay couples tend to be better at resolving conflicts and encouraging positive emotions.
Most Pedophiles Are Gay
An especially pernicious myth is that most adults who sexually abuse children are gay. A number of researchers have looked at this question to determine if homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and the data indicate that’s not the case.
For example, in a 1989 study led by Kurt Freund of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Canada, scientists showed pictures of children to adult gay and straight males, and measured sexual arousal. Homosexual men reacted no more strongly to pictures of male children than heterosexual men reacted to pictures of female children.
A 1994 study, led by Carole Jenny of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, surveyed 269 cases of children who were sexually molested by adults. In 82 percent of cases, the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child, the researchers reported in the journal Pediatrics. In only two out of 269 cases, the offender was identified as being gay or lesbian.
“The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children,” wrote Gregory M. Herek, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis, on his Web site. Herek, who was not involved in the 1989 or 1994 studies, compiled a review of research on the topic.
Gay Parents Aren’t As Good As A Father And Mother
Many of those who oppose gay marriage and gay adoption charge that same-sex parents aren’t good for kids, and that a child needs both a father and a mother to grow up to be a healthy adult. Research, however, shows that children of gay parents tend to fare just fine.
For example, one recent study looked at nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, showing that both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.
Another study found that kids with two moms or two dads were no more likely than their counterparts in “traditional” homes to engage in delinquent activities, such as damaging others’ property, shoplifting and getting into fights.
“The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents,” said Timothy Biblarz, a sociologist at the University of Southern California. “This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well.”
Both studies were described in a literature review paper published in February 2010 in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
Being Gay Is A Choice
The mystery DNA spippets are about 300 times less likely than other regions of the genome to be lost during the course of mammalian evolution.
While some claim that being gay is a choice, or that homosexuality can be cured, evidence is mounting that same-sex attraction is at least partly genetic and biologically based.
To test whether genes play a role, researchers have compared identical twins (in which all genes are shared) to fraternal twins (in which about 50 percent of genes are shared). A 2001 review of such twin studies reported that almost all found identical twins were significantly more likely to share a sexual orientation – that is, to be either both gay, or both straight – than fraternal twins, who are less genetically close. Such findings indicate that genes do factor into a person’s orientation.
Other studies have found that biological effects, such as hormone exposure in the womb, can also play a role in shaping sexual orientation. And findings of physiological differences, such as different inner ear shapes between homosexual and heterosexual women, contribute to this idea.
“The results support the theory that differences in the central nervous system exist between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and that the differences are possibly related to early factors in brain development,” said Sandra Witelson of McMaster University in Ontario, an author on the 1998 inner ear finding published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
I’ve always loved ‘Jocks’ even though they don’t always love me back, lol.
I have fantasized about so many of them. One fantasy plays out like a football game. More like Australian Rules Football or Rugby than American Football and they guys wear very little in the way of uniforms. Maybe just a loincloth would do the job.
The object would be to ‘outscore’ your opponent on the field of play. The reward would be something very special indeed. After the final whistle blows and the victor is crowned a special post-game show would take place center field. All the action would be shown on the enormous HD screens with close-ups and slow-motion replays.
The show would start with showers where the losers lather up, rinse and towel dry the victors. Once the victors are freshly bathed the losers clean themselves, too. Next up, the heroes are given deep tissue massages with scented oils by the fallen ones. You can guess what’s coming up next, yes?
That’s right – a round of unbridled lustful sex where the winning team is ‘pleasured’ by the losing team. Each hero is serviced by each loser in turns. Then the domination begins. Heroes take turns plowing the losers as forcefully as they like and for as long as it takes.
It’s not all bad for the losers, they are given release as well. After the heroes are finished with them they service then dominate each other until everyone gets their ‘happy ending’.
Of course, while this show is taking place center field the crowd is free to carry on with each other in the stands. Every body leaves the stadium physically spent and with smiles on their faces – eager for the next game!
There is a theory that an infinite number of universes exist and that every possible scenario actually does happen in one universe or another. So I’m thinking my imaginary N.S.L. (National Sexball League) actually exists somewhere and one of my other selves just left a NSL game with a smile on his face!
Shannon Elkins, 30, Pest Control Company Owner, LaFayette Lousiana
I was so mesmerized by Chase that I didn’t really notice Shannon at first. I could tell he was a hot head and probably a homophobe as well but there are many of those in the cast this season.
Shannon had a melt down at the tribal council meeting during the second episode of the season. He called Chase out and told the tribe of their alliance and how he felt betrayed by Chase. He called Sash out and asked him if he was “Gay”. Sash never actually said no to the question. Shannon said New York City is full of Gays. Shannon really behaved like someone who wanted to go home. He got his wish.
Anyone that has read my blog knows I’m Gay. Ordinarily I would resent some of the comments Shannon made. Ordinarily I would be happy he was voted off the show. It was inevitable after his tirade so he might as well have gone right then.
I was not surprised by his prejudice. He was open about it. He said it out loud for all to hear. I applaud CBS for showing the “minority alliance” of Sash, Naonka and Brenda as they plotted to get rid of the “majority” members. This was all done in secret. They never said it out loud for all to hear. They were thinking and acting like bigots. They were practicing racial discrimination right before the camera for us to see. They were sneaky and sly about it.
Brenda even made an alliance with Chase and then laughed at him in private saying how dumb he was – a dumb ‘cracker’ is what I heard her think to herself. Racist, racist, racist! How dare they judge Shannon’s action and be so self-righteous. How dare they hide their own plot to get rid of all the “majority” (code for white). I don’t like deception. If someone is a homophobe please tell me to my face and not behind my back. I don’t like those 3 weasels – Sash, Naonka and Brenda.
Naonka is a perfect example of an entitled minority woman. She is disgusting. Brenda is a poster child for the stereotype of a ‘sneaky asian’ woman who will rob you then stab you in the back. Sash – oh, Sash – I think Shannon was right. I think Sash is a Queer as I am. He did not answer the question. He is so damned deceptive I just vomited in my mouth writing this sentence.
I hope Naonka is next to leave followed by Brenda and then Sash.
I hope Chase – my darling Chase – wins the money this year!
Go, Chase, Go!
During his Presidential Campaign he courted the Gay Community and spoke of the inequality shown us by the military. He made a promise. He said over and over again that he would repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. He spoke of how the Black Community had struggled against discrimination for generations. He compared the discrimination Blacks had endured for generations to the discrimination Gays have endure – well – for thousands of years. He spoke of the America where all citizens are equal and free to pursue happiness.
The Gay Community overwhelmingly supported him in his campaign. The Gay Community voted for him en masse. The Gay Community believed his promises. The Gay Community believe he offered the “Change We Need”. The Gay Community had such high hopes after he won the Presidency with an overwhelming landslide. The Gay Community believed America’s attitude towards us had changed for the better. The Gay Community thought their time had come and their Civil Rights were about to be recognized just as the Black Community – with our support – had been recognized as equals and their Civil Rights guaranteed.
Obama spoke of the Black Community’s Civil Rights movement and how Harry Truman’s Executive Order that repealed segregation in the Military had been the catalyst for the future Civil Rights movement. He noted that Truman’s courage to do “What was right” set events in motion that could not be stopped. He spoke of how that moment in time was pivotal and that Truman should be remembered for the stroke of his pen that ended the discrimination Blacks had suffered.
I remember watching Obama make his acceptance speech when he won the Primaries as he spoke to that crowd of 100,000 in Chicago and untold millions on television. I remember Obama spoke of the rights of the Gay Community during that speech. It was awe inspiring. I thought that was a pivotal moment in our struggle for Civil Rights.
Obama took office in January, 2009 with a Democratically controlled Congress. He had an initial approval rating over 80%. At that moment in time he could have put us at the forefront of his administrations agenda. He could have submitted to Congress legislation to repeal DADT and it would have been passed without hesitation. He had the power to help us then but he waited. He never even spoke of it again until recently. Gay rights activists have been persistent and asked over and over again about when he could do as he promised and help us end DADT. Recently – now that his ratings have crashed through the cellar – he decided it was time to help us. Now that he couldn’t get Congress to pass time of day for him. Now that he needs us to help him improve his ratings he decides to put on a Grand Show of it. The Military Spending Bill that was defeated in the Senate today died because of the amendment included in it that did not actually repeal DADT, it did not actually set a time table for the repeal, it simply instructed the military to do more “studies” about the possibility of repealing DADT. WHAT? That’s right – the mere suggestion caused those brave Democratic Senators to throw us out like so much garbage. After all, it’s an election year and they can’t risk their careers for our civil rights. Obama knew what the outcome would be but he wanted to use us again.
Perhaps Harry Truman should have taken on the challenge of helping the Gay Community instead of the Black Community. I wonder how Black Americans would feel if they were in our shoes watching as these greedy, slimy politicians stab them in the back over and over. Perhaps Obama would not even be allowed to drink water from the same fountains as Gay Americans. How would he feel? Perhaps Martin Luther King should have marched to Washington, D.C. demanding Civil Rights for ALL Americans – oh, wait a minute – HE DID!!! Martin Luther King did call for Civil Rights for all Americans – we are part of the “All Americans” group.
How could Obama forsake us this way? How could he lie to our faces and promise us we would be as equal as Black Americans? How could he ignore our pleas for mercy with a clear conscience? How can he sleep at night?
If I could go back to that night when I watched him with so many millions of other Gay Men as he made that promise to us now that I know he is just as slimy as the rest of those slime balls that America voted into office maybe my hopes would not feel so betrayed tonight.
Obama has betrayed the weakest minority in America – I hope he is proud. I hope his family is proud of him for betraying us. I’m sure the hate mongers and homophobes of this country are proud of him. After all, that is who he has made happy with this betrayal.