Friday, May 27, 2005

Gays Give Diseases to Their Children?

I'm going out of town this weekend. It is Memorial Day as well as my birthday weekend, and I am pumped to have some time off. Incidentally, my home computer is still not set up, hence less frequent posting and emails.

On to the topic. HJR 6, the Texas bill to write a Constitutional Ammendment to ban gay marriage (and civil unions too, but we are pretending it doesn't so we can get the gays), passed the Senate. This means it will go to the people on the ballot in November. Great.

Not that I don't trust the people, but sometimes they do get it wrong. Nation wide, the first time a plurality (yes, just a plurality, not a majority) of people thought that interracial marriages were ok was in 1990. And, when the Supreme Court decided to allow interracial marriages on legal grounds, a super majority of the nation was opposed to the ruling (even more than those that oppose gay marriage now). So, the people don't always get it right, and I don't think they will here either.

Now, on to the title of this post. One of the legilators in the Senate spoke out in the hearing to say why she opposed gay marriage, and she said that she did not want to encourage gays to form families, lest they gay people pass on their diseases to the kids. Sorry for not providing a link, but I read this the other day and have not been able to relocate it. I'm still searching.

Anyone that says that attitudes like this are not based in prejudice, discrimination, and ignorance has some soul searching to do. Apparently this is an ok thing to say and believe, even if it isn't based in fact at all.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Exodus Media Blog- I'm Disappointed

I'm disappointed in the Exodus Media Synopsis Blog. In reality, disappointed is too kind of a word. I have already stated that I think the blog's bias is ridiculous. My first post on the site described it as a great place to go to find out everything that is wrong with the gay world.

So, I admit I am starting out here with a bias. But, the other day I came upon a post entitled, "South Africa Rejects Same-Sex Marriage as Against the Bible." The short synopsis of the article said, on Tuesday the Constitutional Court of South Africa reversed the ruling of a Supreme Court of Appeal that legalized same-sex marriage. The Constitutional Court said that same-sex marriage is against the Bible and should not be allowed."

In reading the link, I was pretty shocked that this sort of thing had happened, and I hadn't heard about it. Even more shocked because South Africa is pretty well known for its anti-discrimination laws. So, I clicked on the article from Chritianity Today that the Exodus Blog was referencing.

The ACTUAL article's title is, "South Africa Court Hears Arguments to Reject Same-Sex Marriage." Sounds a bit different, doesn't it? But, when you read the article, it sounds A LOT different. A LOT. In fact, the article mentions Anglican Bishops in the country that released a statement saying that even if South Africa allowed same-sex unions, religious groups would not have to accept them.

So, I found it really odd that this link from Exodus had nothing to do with with the article they linked. And, I wrote an email to their contact address. I got a very nice response from the person there that put the posting up. She basically said that when she posted the article on the blog, the title and theme were just as posted by Exodus. However, when she googled the article after receiving my email, she was unable to find the original one she linked.

Ok, fair enough. All I would expect next was for her to take down the original blog or at least note that the story had changed. I mean, the original article and information provided is no where to be found now. And, the link on the Exodus Blog, now clearly misleads the reader (intentionally or not). I emailed this last week, and still nothing has been done.

I'm disappointed. For an organization so built on Christian foundations, I would expect a quick fixing of this link. A quick apology or delete and it would be taken care of. But now they have a post on their blog that says that "South Africa" rejects same-sex marriage because it is against the Bible when the real article, the actual story simply says that an appeal to the case was heard. And, ironically, enough, given the current court ruling, it would be more honest to say that "South Africa" says gay marriage is ok.

In the interest of honesty, I hope someone from Exodus reads this and updates this posting. Sadly, I feel that being anti-gay is more their goal than being pro-honesty, though.

Friday, May 20, 2005

Two Headed Babies!

Honestly, I don't watch Oprah- I promise! But, my boyfriend does DVR the show daily and then reads the summaries to see if it is worth watching. To date, I have not used our DVR for a show that I just can't miss (I like to rub that in to him).

Anyway, yesterday's Oprah was about a 2 headed baby. I know you have all heard about this happening in the animal kingdom, but apparently it happens with humans too, although this was just the 10th recorded case.

It turns out that the baby had another head connected to its head. The head was only a head and some flesh, no vital organs other than a brain. The Oprah show sometimes referred to the baby with just a head as a parasitic head, and sometimes by its later given name.

So, the baby that was just a head really only had a head (this is starting to sound like a nursery rhyme). But, it did have its own brain and separately functioning face. It very obviously was an independent being from the full baby it was connected to. It lived by a vein that ran through the full baby's brain. This vein allowed the baby with only a head to have blood pumped to it, nutrients, oxygen, etc. It was the only thing keeping it alive.

Wow, I know. However, this vein was straining the full baby, and it was a daily chore for 10 months to keep the baby alive. So, the parents opted to separate the twins, which would obviously end the life of the baby with only a head.

The full baby lived, the other one obviously didn't. My question is, what do ardent pro-lifers think about this. For that matter, what does everyone out there think about this, especially given the Schiavo story? It was very obvious that both babies were going to die if they were kept together. A growing baby would not have been able to support another life. But, it is also obvious that this head was another life, even if impaired physically and mentally.

So, what do you guys think?

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

The Aryan Brotherhood is Against Gay Marriage- Won't You Join Them?

This link from PinkDome exposes a threat by the Aryan Brotherhood towards Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis, made because Senator Ellis delayed the Constitutional Ammendment bill from Monday until Thursday to make sure the public had enough time to comment in the Senate on the issue.

From Ellis, "Issues like this stir the deepest passions in people and, unfortunately, there are some on the extreme fringes like the Aryan Brotherhood who feel emboldened and would rather bully than engage in the process. While everyone who favors HJR 6 is not a bigot, there clearly are those supporters who are and they are vocal. To them, I say this: I will not be bullied, threatened or intimidated, so stop trying."


Apparently the Senate announced the hearing of the bill on Saturday night, but the statements were going to start at 8:30am on Monday and last until 11am. Noting that the House hearing lasted 13 hours, Ellis thought it prudent to delay the hearing, and I agree. Announcing something on Saturday night to be discussed on Monday morning never happens, so why do it with a bill that would create a huge public turnout?

Check out the rest of the story at the link above.

Monday, May 16, 2005

Changing Perceptions

I went to my boyfriend's hometown this weekend for a graduation. We stayed with his family and hung out on Saturday with his childhood best friend. She recently has started dating a rising country star that has a bit of local fame here, and we decided to use this to our advantage when going out.

My boyfriend has never met this new guy before, and we really didn't know what to expect. More importantly, though, is that he had never met us before, and he expressed some reservations to his girlfriend about meeting and hanging out with us because he had never met a gay person before (or at least never hung out with one).

Dinner went very smoothly, and the guy is very nice. We went from there to Karaoke where he sang a song for us. It really isn't fair when professionals sing at Karaoke. He brought down the place. Anyway, in the ride over to the Karaoke bar, the new boyfriend told his girlfriend how much he enjoyed dinner with us. Apparently he repeated that sentiment several times whenever the two of them were out of our ear shot. As we were heading out he even playfully asked me to dance and by the end of the night, he offered hugs to both of us (I usually shake hands with people I have just met, especially guys).

Well, that is the weekend in a nutshell. This new boyfriend really made an impression on me, and I hope I made one on him as well. It is amazing how someone can go from being nervous about hanging out with a gay person one minute and then really enjoying himself with one the next. Gay people really aren't the monsters you hear about out there.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

A Brief Post To Nick

I'm leaving town tomorrow, and moving into the new house has made it harder to keep updating regularly, but as things go back to normal, I should be able to be on here more often.

Anyway, I would like to write a post here to Nick. Nick has posted on this site a time or two, and very early on I linked to his site in a post as one of the sites I read fairly regularly.

Anyway, Nick and I are in some way dealing with the same issue(s) in that we are both gay and are going through life trying to figure out how to deal with it. If you read both of our blogs, you will see that we have taken very different approaches to the issue.

I've decided that I am gay, and I am ok with that (and I think God is too). Nick has decided that in his heart, being gay is not right, and he has chosen to work to find another solution rather than just accepting the "gay" label and moving forward. While I don't think his personal decision is right for me, if it is right for him, I support that, and I admire his resolve and honesty. I especially admire the way he has truthfully and honestly handled his dilemmas without having to do so at the expense of other gays. He has decided that being gay is not where he wants to be in his life, but he realizes that being openly gay and pursuing happiness down that avenue is a path some have taken in their lives.

So, Nick linked to me on his blog, and I have done the same to his. I realize that our blogs are nearly polar opposite in what we talk about, so I was pleasantly surprised to see the link on his blog. I happily returned the favor.

Thanks Nick.

Monday, May 09, 2005

Gay Marriage is a "Crime Which Represents the Destruction of The Word"

Here are some more gems:

Countries that "open the way for same sex 'marriage' . . . destroy piece by piece the institution of the family the most valuable heritage of peoples and humanity."

Gays adopting children "would destroy the child's future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child."

"They say that children adopted by two people of the same sex are very happy. A child may be for a couple of years but when the child reaches the age of reason, when he grows up and becomes a young adult, how tragic it will be for him to let his friends know that his 'parents' are two women or two men? This situation endangers the child's personality, balance, harmony."
-Hmm, this doesn't sound like the results of any study I have read...

"As I have said many times, homosexual peoples must be respected, loved and assisted. We must help them overcome this situation if they seriously want to and help them realise that there is not only life on earth, there is another life. The Church does not wish to see these 'couples' suffer discrimination, or humiliation, jeered at or treated without respect. They are human persons and we must love them."
-Well at least we ended on a high note.

All of these quotes came from Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, one of the highest Cardinals in the Catholic Church. You can read the article here.

Don't get me wrong, I can certainly appreciate the call for dignity and respect the Cardinal ends with, but I put these quotes up here for a reason. To me, it seems pretty ironic to say something was going to cause the "destruction of the world" and then say the people that are trying to attain that thing deserve respect.

I am glad he kept his "chicken little" rantings to gay marriage and adoption and not gays in general (as some of the Protestant right-wingers have done), but it still sits odd to me.

To say that gay parents are committing moral violence against their child is pretty out of line if you ask me (yes, I know the statement was general, but it has personal consequences). Calling a loving, caring parent a committor of violence, moral or otherwise is a huge accusation, and even the final call for dignity and respect can't cover that up. In fact, I don't think this particular statement has anything to do with dignity and respect, it is the opposite of dignity and respect. This is over the top rhetoric used to incite people, nothing less.

Disagree all you want with homoexuality, but this type of language is not backed by statistics at all, and does no good to anyone.

Man, Satan sure did hit the jackpot with this gay thing. Even if being gay isn't going to send a person to hell, the over the top nonsense by the Church is doing a pretty good job of driving gay people away from it too.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Rosie O'Donnell, meet Stephen Bennett

There is an ex-gay evangelist by the name of Stephen Bennett. Stephen has a blog (a very popular blog from what I have seen), and he also likes to post on other people's blogs.

Recently he posted on the blog of none other than Rosie O'Donnell and then dedicated a blog post of his own to good 'ole Rosie. In all honesty, for the most part Stephen was kind and open to Rosie. He said he respected her, thought she was good person, and wanted to meet her. For that matter, Stephen is pretty kind in most of his blog. While he obviously believes being gay is a sin, he does a good job of shying away from the "end of the world" mentality that has been pervading the debate recently.

So, Rosie replied to Stephen's post about her. Man, the blogosphere sure is cool. It made me feel like I had had real contact with a celebrity, lol. For some reason Rosie writes on her blog and in her comments on others in some sort of poetic type of format. She swears it is just how she writes, but it is downright annoying.

Rosie said she wished Stephen well, but she eluded to the fact that she doesn't believe he changed and declined his invitation to meet. Stephen did tell her her heart was "stoney," so I can't say I blame her for that one. Plus, I'd be weary of his motivations--is he just looking for some extra publicity?

Stephen came down on Rosie's response fairly harshly. He said she was wrong in some of her comments (one poster rightly pointed out that Stephen had misread her post--she is writing in that jacked up poetry, so I can't say I blame him, though). But, he did come down pretty harshly on her, which left me wondering even more what his real intentions were. Was he just trying to look like the nicer person in all of this? Maybe he just really thought she was being mean, but I definitely didn't

Anyway, there's my brush with fame for the day. Maybe this will be an ongoing saga between Rosie and Stephen. That'd be pretty fun to watch.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Pat Robertson- Muslims Shouldn't Be in Government

Yeah, I couldn't believe this when I read it either.

I remember Rush being mad that Democrats were against some of these judges because of their "deeply held convictions." He translated that to mean their religion. He kind of has a point- kind of. They are not really blocking them because of their religion, but because their beliefs (some of which may be religious) might get in the way of impartiality.

Ok, back to the post here. What does Rush have to say about Pat Robertson's statements saying Muslims probably wouldn't make good judges? What does Focus on the Family have to say? What about all of the conservative pundits?

I'd like to say that I hope that they treat this statement with the same or worse condemnation of the "perceived" claims of some of the Democrats, but I won't hold my breath.

The Daily Show and Paul Cameron

I don't watch the Daily Show that much, but when I do, I am almost always pleased. In fact, this time I didn't even watch the show--I just read the transcript.

I have some vested interest in this because it is on the subject of some insane legislators in my state passing a bill to ban gays from being foster parents. Not only are some of these people insane, but they actually lie and quote statistics without even trying to cite a source.

If this type of madness, dishonesty, vitriol isn't driven by hate, I don't know what is.

I encourage you to check out the unofficial transcript, commentary, and analysis of the quack Paul Cameron (who I have been setting people straight on for a few years now in various blogs, message boards, etc.), go to jabbs.

Let me be blunt. Paul Cameron is such a quack and lying cheat that anyone that would come near a study he has done has a clear agenda or a very poor fact-checking team. Probably the first.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Being Gay is not My Personal Life

Or so says a commenter I encountered over at Sed Contra. After saying that gays should not get any kind of employment protection, and saying that it was perfectly moral for people to deny gays employment, even if they do not discuss their sexuality at work at all, I decided to step in and offer my view of things. I said that my being gay has nothing to do with my work, and if it somehow affected my work, then my boss would have something to say. But since it doesn't, it shouldn't.

He proceeded to tell me that it was a dubious claim to say that my "sexual behavior" was part of my personal/private life. You know, I always wondered what the opponents of the Lawrence v. Texas ruling were thinking. Now I know- gays do not have any right to privacy at all, according to this line of thinking.

Let's be clear here- the Lawrence case never said that sodomy is a protected right in the constitution. What it said was that there was a right to privacy in the constitution and there was a right to due process in the constitution, and invading gay people's homes to see if they are having sex (while letting straight people have a pass- this was admitted by the state) was violating both issues.

According to Victor, the commenter, though, gays have no right to private/personal lives. How much more part of one's personal/private life can their families be? As much as many conservatives would like people to believe otherwise, this really is about taking away people's rights.

**Update on this one. Gay Like a Fox is having a little bit of debate on this issue too. He has some good takes, especially a response he made to Victor. Since Victor said I was jumping to conclusions by saying he said it would be moral to deny a gay person employment, I'm still waiting for him to say clearly whether or not it is moral to deny a gay person employment. What do you think, Victor?