Thoughts I Have

TV

Justin Bieber: being gay is a decision and abortion is wrong


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.”


Santorum’s Gay Sex Problem


Posted on Advocate.com February 16, 2011
Santorum’s Gay Sex Problem
Antigay former U.S. senator Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, has found the use of his name in connection with anal sex is a hyperlink that’s hard to break… thanks to Dan Savage.
By Advocate.com Editors

– (from left) Rick Santorum and Dan Savage

Antigay former U.S. senator Rick Santorum, a potential 2012 Republican presidential candidate, has found that the use of his name in connection with anal sex is a hyperlink that’s hard to break, Roll Call reports.

In 2003 sex-advice columnist Dan Savage was seeking to mock Santorum for his homophobic statements, such as remarks he made in an interview that year to the effect that legalization of gay sex could lead to recognition of “man on child” and “man on dog” relationships. Savage held a competition asking his readers to come up with a new definition for “Santorum,” and the winning entry referred to a by-product of anal intercourse. Now a Google search for “Santorum” will frequently turn up that meaning of the word.

Roll Call consulted technology experts, who said there was little Santorum could do to prevent Web searches from finding sites with that definition. The politician himself “sounded slightly defeated” when asked about his “Google problem” recently, the publication reported. “It’s one guy,” Santorum told Roll Call. “You know who it is. The Internet allows for this type of vulgarity to circulate. It’s unfortunate that we have someone who obviously has some issues. But he has an opportunity to speak.”

Santorum added, however, that the phenomenon is an indication of “incivility” in politics. “You want to talk about incivility,” he said. “I don’t know of anybody on the left who came to my defense for the incivility with respect to those things.”

In response to Santorum’s statements, Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund spokesman Dennis Dison told Roll Call, “I think that civility in politics is a fantastic goal. … Speaking from the LGBT community, we wish he would practice it.”


The ‘Bishop Eddie Long’ Gift Keeps On Giving


Monday, January 3, 2011
The ‘Bishop Eddie Long’ gift keeps on giving
Posted by Timothy Beauchamp at 1/03/2011 03:00:00 PM

One of the things our community must do is to use every opportunity to point out how hypocritical the other side is when it comes to their endless false assertion that their relationships are somehow superior to ours.

One way to do this is to not allow the mainstream media to sweep big stories, like the Bishop Eddie Long fiasco, under the rug.

With little fanfare or news coverage, the four sexual coercion lawsuits confronting Bishop Eddie Long had the first hearing recently, with both sides opting for mediation to avoid a trial.

Why no major news outlet or editorial columnist has discussed the implications of such a move is nothing less than egregious in nature. Despite the initial media crush and coverage and the incessant analysis of Bishop Long’s statement on his website and “sermon,” there’s been nary a peep in response to the quest for mediation.

Where is the mainstream media on Bishop Eddie Long’s end-run? If a charismatic fundamentalist church leader publicly presents their marriage as superior and then resorts to mediation to settle gay sex allegations by young members of his flock then that is news. BIG NEWS.

Bishop Eddie Long agreeing to mediation of sexual coercion charges is an end-run around the universally accepted moral and ethical responsibilities of any ecumenical leader. Mediation of sexual allegation grievances is tantamount to an admission of “some” guilt, “some” form of ministerial misconduct. Innocent folk don’t make deals if the claims against them are baseless and untrue. Mediation for the accused is a forfeiture of the right to ever claim innocence, and readers should be absolutely clear on this point.

It is important to use every gift of cognitive dissonance given us by the other side to prove they have no corner on human morality, and we deserve every single right they enjoy that they would gladly deny us while reminding all voters those rights are enshrined in our constitution.


Sexuality Doesn’t Matter On The Battlefield


Sexuality Doesn’t Matter On The Battlefield
By Nathan Cox
Thursday, December 16, 2010; 8:00 PM
Washingtonpost.com

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.”

Smith: “Really?”

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.


Running With Santas In Speedos


Posted on Advocate.com December 14, 2010
Running With Santas in Speedos
By Advocate.com Editors
Minimages.com
BOSTON Santa Speedo Run 2010

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.


Three Discharged Vets Sue For Re-Instatement Challenging DADT


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

Minimages.com

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 Apprentice’ Star Donald Trump Endorses Homophobia


Monday, November 15, 2010

Taken from New Gay Earth

Donald Trump Endorses Homophobia

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