07-21-10, 02:02 PM #501
08-31-10, 07:04 PM #502
Castro to Cuban Gays: "Mea culpa"
Castro to Cuban Gays: "Mea culpa"
Former Cuban president admits he fumbled on homophobia
I'm not sure what to make of this:
Fidel Castro has said that he is ultimately responsible for the persecution suffered by homosexuals in Cuba after the revolution of 1959.
The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.
"If someone is responsible, it's me," he said.
In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to "re-education camps".
But, nevertheless, he admits he didn't pay enough attention to what was going on against the gay community.
But there it is. Er ... um ... thank you, comrade.
British Broadcasting Corporation. "Fidel Castro takes blame for persecution of Cuban gays". BBC News Online. August 31, 2010. BBC.co.uk. August 31, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11147157
10-19-10, 07:43 PM #503
Saudi prince goes down in London
The excesses of royalty; the constraints of morality. One wonders at the psychiatric dossier of a Saudi prince convicted of beating and strangling his manservant lover to death in London:
A Saudi prince has been found guilty of murdering his servant at a hotel in central London.
Bandera Abdulaziz, 32, was found beaten and strangled in the Landmark Hotel, Marylebone, on 15 February 2010.
The Old Bailey was told the assault by Saud Abdulaziz bin Nasser al Saud had a "sexual element" and he had attacked Mr Abdulaziz many times before ....
.... The murder of Mr Abdulaziz was the final act in a "deeply abusive" master-servant relationship in which Al Saud carried out frequent attacks on his aide "for his own personal gratification".
The 34-year-old was fuelled by champagne and cocktails when he bit his servant hard on both cheeks during the attack on 15 February, the court heard.
The pair had just returned from a Valentine's Day night out when Al Saud launched the ferocious assault.
Jurors heard that Mr Abdulaziz was left so worn down and injured - having suffered a "cauliflower" ear and a swollen eye from previous assaults - that he let Al Saud kill him without a fight.
The pair had just returned from a Valentine's Day night out when Al Saud launched the assault.
Al Saud then spent hours on the phone to a contact in Saudi Arabia trying to work out how to cover up what he had done.
Apparently the prince told authorities that the late Mr. Abdulaziz suffered his injuries some weeks before, in a robbery. Al Saud also said he had been asleep, and woke up to find his servant dead. Two prior assaults, however, had been captured on CCTV footage.
If he ever returns to his home country he faces the possibility of execution - not because of the murder, but because being gay is a capital offence in Saudi Arabia.
The verdict means a long jail term for the prince, who is a member of one of the world's richest and most powerful dynasties.
Such is the way of justice. For Al Saud's sake, at least he—ahem!—went down in London.
British Broadcasting Corporation. "Saudi prince found guilty of murdering servant in hotel". BBC News. October 19, 2010. BBC.co.uk. October 18, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11571822
11-11-10, 10:41 PM #504
Excuse Me, But Did You Just Say 'Zero'?
New study result suggests ... um ... low ... sex abuse rate in lesbian households
Wow. This was ... unexpected:
The Williams Institute, a research center on sexual orientation law and public policy at UCLA School of Law, has announced new findings from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS), the longest-running study ever conducted on American lesbian families (now in its 24th year). In an article published today in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers were asked about sexual abuse, sexual orientation, and sexual behavior.
The paper found that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.
According to the authors, "the absence of child abuse in lesbian mother families is particularly noteworthy, because victimization of children is pervasive and its consequences can be devastating. To the extent that our findings are replicated by other researchers, these reports from adolescents with lesbian mothers have implications for healthcare professionals, policymakers, social service agencies, and child protection experts who seek family models in which violence does not occur."
On sexual orientation, 2.8 percent of the NLLFS adolescents identified as predominantly to exclusively homosexual.
No, really. That was completely unexpected. Blindside. Out of nowhere. Had no idea it was coming.
Chiles, Clay. "Child Abuse Rate At Zero Percent In Lesbian Households, New Report Finds". The Huffington Post. November 10, 2010. HuffingtonPost.com. November 11, 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_781624.html
11-12-10, 11:46 AM #505
so your saying all we have to do to protect the children is Keep them away from our men???
Thats impossible the women can't keep their hands of us, and they always get pissed off If we stay away at our other girlfrinds house for too long. As I say this my mother says after I just got done eating, "Tummy Full"
I Just want to be like, "quiet your edipus complex a little, your freaking me out", But I know she wouldn't get the joke.
12-01-10, 07:10 PM #506
Should we really be surprised?
The Gay Conspiracy at TSA
Virginia Republican asserts pat-down policy part of gay agenda
You know that phrase, "Just when you thought ..."?
You know, Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse ....
Or, Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ....
How about, Just when you thought it couldn't get any more insane without the Universe collapsing ....
Let us go with that last one for a moment, but recognizing that it probably is a bit of an overstatement.
A conservative Loudoun County lawmaker says controversial airport pat-downs by the Transportation Security Administration are part of a "wide-scale homosexual agenda."
Eugene Delgaudio, a Republican representing Sterling on the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, made the comments in a widely distributed e-mail sent in his capacity as president of the conservative nonprofit Public Advocate of the United States.
In the e-mail—reported by WUSA9—Delgaudio also says the TSA's non-discrimination hiring policy is "the federal employee's version of the Gay Bill of Special rights."
"That means the next TSA official that gives you an enhanced pat-down could be a practicing homosexual secretly getting pleasure from your submission," he wrote.
So let's get a couple of questions out of the way: Is there anything wrong in the world that isn't the fault of homosexuals?
And, Is there anything so despicably stupid that a social conservative wouldn't actually say it?
In a petition urging opposition to The Student Non-Discrimination Act introduced in Congress by Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, Delgaudio said the bill would turn America's "playgrounds into homosexual breeding grounds."
In a fundraising and survey appeal, Delgaudio also reportedly said the homosexual agenda in Congress promotes same-sex marriages and adoptions, which will lead to "men hand-in-hand skipping down to adoption centers to 'pick out' a little boy for themselves."
What slays me here, though, is that these disparate issues—terrorism and gay rights—are both serious, with powerful implications for society. Yet Delgaudio has managed to make them both, as well as himself, a laughingstock.
As trifectas go, perhaps that's a safe bet.
WTOP. "Va. lawmaker claims pat-downs part of 'homosexual agenda'". December 1, 2010. WTOP.com. December 1, 2010. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=2182930
12-16-10, 03:54 PM #507
Today In Ignorance
Today In Ignorance
Head meet wall ... face meet palm ... no, really, did you just say that?
A faction of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay political group, has decided to take offense at the use of rainbow colors by the gay rights movement:
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse is the founder and president of the Ruth Institute, which describes itself as "a project of the National Organization for Marriage." On its site, the group describes its mission statement as "to promote life-long married love to college students by creating an intellectual and social climate favorable to marriage."
Becky Yeh of right-wing American Family News Network's OneNewsNow, a product of the American Family Association, writes that Morse says "the rainbow is a sign of God's covenant with man." Morse told ONN: "Proposition 8 was passed by a great grassroots coalition that included people from all across the religious traditions, and also people of every race and color. We are the real rainbow coalition. The gay lobby does not own the rainbow."
And good Christians, according to Morse, "can't simply let that go by". After all, "Families put rainbows in their chilren's nurseries. Little Christian preschools will have rainbows ...."
But the real kicker here:
Morse operates a blog on the Ruth Institute's website, and recently wrote a post asking supporters of same-sex marriage: "Do you really believe that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and that gender is irrelevant to parenting? If gender is really irrelevant, why do self-described 'gays' insist on having a male sex partner? Why isn't a really masculine woman just as acceptable as a male sex partner?"
Or: The economist says what?
Which, of course, should serve to remind that just because someone has a PhD doesn't mean they can't be incredibly stupid.
Rayfield, Jillian. "Anti-Gay Activist: Gay Rights Groups Stole The Rainbow From Us!" TPM Muckraker. December 16, 2010. TPMMuckraker.TalkingPointsMemo.com. December 16, 2010. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...ow_from_us.php
Ruth Institute. "Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D." (n.d.) RuthInstitute.org. December 16, 2010. http://www.ruthinstitute.org/pages/DrJBio.html
12-16-10, 05:19 PM #508
would love to see that one in court actually, would just show how brain dead the anti gay lobby actually is. You could have stand offs, rainbows at 20 paces
but seriously, anytime someone starts raving "think of the children" i imidiatly jump to the otherside of the debate (unless they are actually talking about convicted pedophiles oviously)
12-16-10, 07:42 PM #509
How. . . . interesting.
Really, I mean, we're quibbling over a flag now?
12-16-10, 08:08 PM #510
12-16-10, 08:19 PM #511
12-17-10, 11:23 AM #512
Eliding the Lesbians, Almost Twenty Years LaterOriginally Posted by Superstring01
Also, did you notice that the economist, like so many before her, focused specifically on gay men?
The sufficiently invisible lesbian strikes again.
Kent, Le'a. "Abnormal, Wrong, Unnatural and Perverse: Taking the Measure (9) Out of the Closet". (n.d.) Cultronix.eServer.org. December 17, 2010. http://cultronix.eserver.org/kent/
01-18-11, 04:15 PM #513
The Supremes Say No to Supremacists
D.C.: Sorry, Supremacists ... the Real Supremes Said No
U.S. Supreme Court refuses anti-marriage lawsuit
Robert Barnes brings us the news—
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to revive a lawsuit intending to allow a voter referendum on the District's same-sex marriage law.
Local courts have said the District's Board of Elections and Ethics was justified in denying attempts by opponents of same-sex marriage to put the issue to a vote. Without comment, the justices said they would not review the latest decision upholding the board's decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals.
—and the daily stupidity:
The challenge was led by Bishop Harry Jackson, a D.C. resident who is pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville. He and other opponents, represented by a conservative legal group, said it should not be up to officials to decide when public initiatives are allowed.
Why is it that when human beings follow the law, we hear this argument about how it shouldn't be up to them to decide when to follow the law?
Or, more specifically:
The board has contended that such a ballot initiative would, if approved, violate the city's Human Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. A judge agreed, and the appeals court by a 5 to 4 vote upheld the ruling ....
.... The D.C. appeals court majority said that the board "correctly determined that the proposed initiative would have the effect of authorizing" discrimination.
And the court said the council "was not obliged to allow initiatives that would have the effect of authorizing discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Act to be put to voters, and then to repeal them, or to wait for them to be challenged as having been improper subjects of initiative, should they be approved by voters."
At some point, when humans are enforcing the law, a human being must necessarily acknowledge in his or her mind that a law has been broken, or is being complied with.
At some point, the law falls into human hands.
Hope Christian Church, of Beltsville, and its partners in the lawsuit against the District, apparently think this simple fact of reality is somehow morally wrong.
It's a curious notion that people ought to vote on who gets to be a person. The District of Columbia has rejected it, and now the Supreme Court has said it sees no reason to get involved in that rejection.
Sorry, supremacists, but the real Supremes said no.
Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court refuses to revive effort to put D.C. same-sex marriage law to vote". The Washington Post. January 18, 2011. WashingtonPost.com. January 18, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011802214.html
01-31-11, 03:12 PM #514
Marriage Equality at Annapolis"I didn't blaze any trail. I buried my husband."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—Mark Ketterson
Because a marriage certificate is just that important.
Steinberg, Neil. "Gay Marine’s husband surprised at respect shown by Naval Academy". Chicago Sun-Times. January 30, 2011. SunTimes.com. January 31, 2011. http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinbe...a-husband.html
01-31-11, 11:22 PM #515"I didn't blaze any trail. I buried my husband."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—Mark Ketterson
Because a marriage certificate is just that important."
02-07-11, 04:12 AM #516
02-07-11, 04:45 PM #517
The Value of Political TheatreOriginally Posted by Superstring01
Unfortunately, winning the argument and winning the day are two separate things, as Iowa House Republicans reminded. But the bill is expected to crash in the Senate, so W.W.'s other characterization seems accurate: "Whatever it was Iowa House Republicans were trying to achieve, it certainly wasn't to offer a soapbox to Zach Wahls ...."
And in the larger discussion of politics, I would suggest this is also what it looks like when people fumble away a lost cause. I am thoroughly convinced, having watched and taken part in this political issue for nigh on twenty years, that the gay rights movement would not have achieved such progress over the period but for the futility of the homophobic argument. That is, if they had just let go, the status quo would have held for longer than it did.
The blogger described the hearing and vote as "ineffectual conservative political theatre", and it is hard to disagree. Except that it might actually represent deterioration. It seems to me that such efforts are actually hastening civil rights regarding sexual orientation.
The gay rights questions have been put to me, largely, by the conseratives. And, for the most part, the conservatives are losing. But as certain issues, such as gay marriage, came to the fore, some political entities felt compelled to stake their territory, and create registries and unions, or codify prohibitions.
We won our first DoMA decision last year. Sure, it took longer than I wanted, but so what? It's here. And it couldn't have come about without the high-profile contention that kept certain questions in the limelight. There would be no question of what to do with a gay partner for benefits if there were no recognized gay partners, which was certainly fallout from the conservative response to Lawrence v. Texas.
Everything else follows, and they know it. I'm not certain Lawrence could have come about without the OCA and Measure 9 in Oregon, or Amendment 2 in Colorado. People were happy to ignore the question unless someone asked. So it seems to me the more they asked, the more the conservatives felt rejected. And to some degree, society is actually making some of the progress it is specifically because conservatives keep asking the question.
And that's how it works. Because there will always be some conservative schmuck sitting on a school board somewhere who wants to badmouth gay kids exactly at the moment everyone else is taking a breath and trying to get a handle on the body count and what it means.
Deep down, near the heart of the whole argument, is that men don't want to imagine their sons getting dicked any more than they want to think about their daughters. Or they do, if you're a Freudian pessimist, and everything just gets really complicated.
But the simple version is that if people don't want to face an issue or aspect of life, they just don't. Hence, the questions never get asked.
But who comes along and asks us to think about it?
They see the conservative schmuck on the school board. They think about the crazy abstinence lady they heard on the radio. They remember the prudes who worked so hard to screw up everyone's understanding of sexual processes in humans. The school principal who did the thong check at the dance probably works her way into people's general view of the issues. Someone may not understand buggery. They might not comprehend the idea of actually wanting that kind of contact. But they also know shit stark crazy when they see it, and so when they're asked to make a decision, they decide in a way that doesn't include them with the shit stark crazy.
And this issue is so over that we see in that process a suggestion of how the rest of this is going to play out.
As the traditionalists and homophobes lose ground, they'll keep sounding crazier, and more and more of those middle grounders who, I think, would rather never think about such things at all, will separate from the clear insanity.
I mean, this can't really be worth writing discrimination into Iowa law, can it?
W. W. "The Iowa House v Zach Wahls and his moms". Democracy In America. February 4, 2011. Economist.com. February 7, 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...y_gay_marriage
02-10-11, 12:08 PM #518
Life Expectancy and Marriage
Life Expectancy and Marriage
This makes almost no sense at all
This starts with the idea of "second-hand effects". That is, the second-hand effects of homosexuality are are harmful.
You know, public health, like second-hand smoke?
Yesterday, Igor Volsky published an article stemming from his interview with Iowa state Rep. Dwayne Alons (R), who is leading the charge to outlaw marriage equality in his state.
TP: There is also this argument that argues that homosexuality is a public health hazard, that there are higher rates of STDs and higher rates of other diseases. Do you agree with that view?
ALONS: I think that whole lifestyle has brought a lot of problems to society…For the most part when you look at some of the issues that have been brought up by homosexuals’ lifestyle, there are a lot of negatives that have been brought into society and I think government is trying to deal with that and should be dealing with.
TP: And what kind of negatives, do you think?
ALONS: Well, look at all that has been spent, you know, with the AIDS and with the issues related to the dying at an early age. I think life, longevity, of a lot of these folks is below 50, when you know, the normal people that do not enter into that kind of relationship, their either late into their 70s or early 80s for longevity. A lot more actual productive years and contributing to society. [...]
TP: So do you think there are ways for the state to discourage this kind of behavior that leads to the kind of public health problems that you’ve described?
ALONS: I think having a limitation on one man and one woman would be a pathway to get that as a basic foundational direction.
The usual suspects, of course, are outraged. Dan Savage responds:
Even if it were true—even if gay people had lower life expectancies (which we do not)—and if that "fact" all by itself was a justification for banning same-sex marriage, why stop with gay people? Iowa should ban fat marriage. There are, according to the state of Iowa, more than 1.4 million obese people living in Iowa. That's nearly 30% of the state's population, and those numbers just keep rising. The social costs of Iowa's obesity epidemic are pretty staggering—and those costs include including premature death and lower average life expectancies for Iowans.
Since we know that obesity is "contagious"—someone with an obese spouse is 37% more likely to be or become obese—then we shouldn't permit the obese to marry. If an outright ban on fat marriage seems too draconian, then we shouldn't permit the obese to marry the non-obese. The odds that the skinny spouse will be ultimately be seduced into the risky obese lifestyle are simply too great and the potential health consequences too severe.
If public health is the justification for amending the state constitution to strip marriage equality for homosexuals, doesn't equality demand that public health be a consideration in other marriages?
Good As You. "The Second-Hand Effects of [Aligning Candidacy with The Family Leader]". February 3, 2011. GoodAsYou.org. February 10, 2011. http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you...ly-leader.html
Volsky, Igor. "Sponsor Of Iowa's Anti-Gay Marriage Bill Agrees That Gays Are Public Health Risk". Wonk Room. February 9, 2011. WonkRoom.ThinkProgress.org. February 10, 2011. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...ons-interview/
Savage, Dan. "Ban Fat Marriage". Slog. February 10, 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. February 10, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...n-fat-marriage
02-11-11, 04:32 PM #519
Why Not Ban "Poor" Marriage?
I mean, since that's how the logic is supposed to work ....
Will Wilkinson posted, last week, a video from an Iowa House of Representatives hearing considering a bill to ban gay marriage in that state. (See #516 above.) Naturally, well, let's let Wilkinson tell it:
Steven Landsburg, an economist at the University of Rochester, was not impressed.
In a video that’s begun to go viral, University of Iowa engineering student Zach Wahls attempts to refute this notion [that gay people, on average, are less successful as parents] without offering a shred of evidence beyond a single cherry-picked case (his own) to prove that children of gay parents sometimes turn out just fine (except, perhaps, for their ability to reason)...
What’s particularly disturbing to me is all the chatter about how eloquent this kid is, as if eloquence in the service of intellectual misdirection were somehow something to be admired.
As with pretty much any homophobic argument of principle, the easiest response is to just apply the standard equally. (See #518 above.)
Wilkinson responded to Landsburg in just that manner:
The science-minded Mr Landsburg may be shocked to learn the assault on marriage equality in Iowa and elsewhere is not predicated upon the modest empirical hypothesis "that gay people, on average, are less successful as parents"; it is based on a conviction of faith that homosexuality is a sinful perversion inherently corrosive to the values that make healthy families possible. Mr Wahls' upstanding, A-student, Eagle-Scout character together with his normatively wholesome family life is sufficient to cast rational doubt on this rather sweeping article of faith.
Let's suppose, though, that there is a credible basis for the proposition "that gay people, on average, are less successful as parents", and that this has something to do with the gay-marriage debate we have been having here in Iowa. What then? Consider an analogy. There is evidence that people in dire poverty are, for a number of reasons, less "successful" as parents. Suppose some of us therefore proposed banning marriages between poor people. The first argument against this proposal is that the right to marry should not depend on membership in a class that is, on average, as successful at parenting as other classes. The second argument is that stripping poor people of the right to marry strips them of legal equality and what John Rawls, the great political philosopher, called "the social bases of self-respect". This harmful injustice would be suffered by the whole class marginalised by official discrimination, but it would be especially salient in the case of exemplary poor families clearly deserving of equal standing, recognition, and social esteem. The moving story of an exceptional family that would be harmed by the proposed codification of inequality draws our attention germanely toward the broader injustice such a law would create. Mr Wahls' primary argument seems to me to be of this sort. Again, this former logic instructor can see no sophistry in it.
(Boldface accend added)
And, certainly, Wilkinson's examination of the rhetorical devices of Landsburg's position is worth a read, as well:
... Mr Landsburg's criticism of Mr Wahls' alleged error of reasoning seems to come down to a demand that the young man behave instrumentally irrationally and fight for his moral cause with inappropriate rhetorical means ....
.... I'm pretty familiar with Mr Lansdburg's often illuminating popular writing, and neither of these explanations seems right to me. He's got no problem with gay marriage, as far as I know. And he certainly doesn't think people should undermine their honourable aims by behaving irrationally. So what gives? My guess is that, like a number of right-leaning economists, Mr Landsburg has a regrettable tendency toward tone-deaf, context-dropping, contrarian provocation based on an unexamined assumption that this is what it means to be bravely rational. It is not. In any case, I think we can all agree that, other things equal, intellectual misdirection is not "something to be admired".
I know, I know. That last part is all complicated, and sounds like something someone might have said around here before, which means it's all just a bunch of liberal elitist snobbery intended to confuse and distract "real" Americans.
So let's just go back to the simpler part of the argument: Should we ban marriage between poor people? Or people who might become poor? You know, since they are, statistically, "less successful" as parents?
I'm sorry, does that proposition offend you? Well, don't worry, it's not a real suggestion. Rather, it's just an illustration of the effects of what desperate logic the homophobes are scraping up in pursuit of their bigotry.
Wilkinson, Will. "The fallacy of careless contrarianism". Democracy in America. February 8, 2011. Economist.com. February 11, 2011. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...nd_rationality
02-12-11, 12:36 AM #520
Wow, this is from a year and a half ago, but just saw it, and it doesn't appear to be on this forum, so...
One of the founding
philanderersfathers of the Proposition 8 measure in California has demonstrated how strongly he feels about the sacredness of holy matrimony.
Protector of traditional marriage Doug Manchester leaving wife of 43 years
In July 2008, hotelier and developer Doug Manchester donated $125,000 to help gather signatures for a proposition that would ban same-sex marriage in California. The early money was crucial to getting the initiative—which ultimately passed—on the ballot. At the time, he told The New York Times that he made the donation because of “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church,” which preferred that marriage remain between a man and a woman. Indeed, the Catholic Church has vehemently opposed gay marriage. Then again, it’s also not too keen on divorce.
On Oct. 9, 2008, Manchester ended 43 years, eight months and nine days of marriage to Elizabeth Manchester by moving out of their La Jolla abode. The couple spent the next several months trying to reach a quiet settlement on how best to distribute millions of dollars in cash and other assets. In July, those talks totally broke down, and Doug started playing financial hardball with Elizabeth, allegedly draining the couple’s shared accounts and stealing her mail. On Aug. 6, Elizabeth filed a petition for redress in family court. All of the information in this story comes from those petitions. CityBeat contacted attorneys for both parties, but neither returned calls by press time.
Love how often these idiots pull this kind of sh*t.
AND, he's a Catholic of all things.
As some one on another blog commented :
"They may keep the sanctity of marriage to themselves, but we won't be so mean as take away their right to a divorce."
You can almost put it on your calendar.
Every 6 months or so, expect at least one major or minor conservative to shoot their own moral high-horse. Or get trampled by it. Or something.