Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Coretta Scott King--All Discrimination is Wrong

Coretta Scott King passed away today. She was and still is a great force in fighting racial injustice. She had recently taken up the cause on behalf of gay people as well.

I have to say, no matter what someone thinks about the rightness or wrongness of being gay (that's a WHOLE different post), I simply don't understand the desire to be able to discriminate based solely on someone's attractions. Discrimination of any kind is wrong, period. Someday I think everyone will realize that. You don't have to support gay people to simply look and say that discrimination is wrong.

Pam's House Blend has a great speech from Coretta Scott King about the GLBT fight for equality. What a sad loss to have her gone.

Monday, January 30, 2006

Let's Let the Voters Decide

The anti-gay folks bring up this little gem everytime a legislature (state or otherwise) brings up any ballot that might mildly support gay people--from gay rights to gay marriage to gay adoption. The problem is that it's just such a ridiculous claim.

Give me a break. They're not interested in what the voters want unless the voters are on their side. If the voters were on the side of gays (which they sometimes are), you know good and well they would be taking it to the courts and trying to keep it as far away from the voters as possible.

It's fine, that's how politics and goverment work--you have to use any means necessary to win (i.e. courts, legislature, voters, etc.). But at least lets be honest.

We want to win. Most on the far left and the far right couldn't care less what the voters wanted if the voters didn't agree with them, so let's stop pretending they do. Let's just be honest. They should just say, "We're right, you're wrong, and we are going to use any legal method to make our view law. If that means a vote, great, but if the vote's not with us, we'll try something else."

Friday, January 27, 2006

Federal Marriage Amendment Back?

I really hope not. I really really hope not, but Raw Story is saying it's a likelyhood. What, the GOP didn't get enough votes off of the backs of gay people last go around?

There are some good takes in the article, including the idea that this isn't as much to get votes out as it is to take pressure away from the falling popularity of members of Congress (basically a distraction with me as the victim).

I've said it once, and I'll keep saying it--the idea that being gay is a moral issue exists almost exclusively in the minds of people that aren't gay and have no idea what it's like to be gay. So, they pretend this is an issue of choice or that gay people aren't moral enough to resist being gay, and they sell it to the public like that.

Gay civil unions aren't about two people making lives together, they become being about two people that aren't moral enough to be straight. Think about it. What an absurd but effective way to spin an argument. It's not truthful, but it works.

They never look at this issue as if they were themselves gay, to try and see what the issue is really about, and I hate that.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

U.S. Tells the U.N. to Ignore Gay Groups

I got an email from a friend of mine about a little goings-on at the U.N. It appears that a couple of gay non-governmental organizations (NGO's) applied for some sort of consutlative status with the U.N. so they could be allowed to discuss and persuade votes between U.N. member nations. Having this status is the only way these types of groups can be heard.

Unfortunately, the U.S. decided the gay groups weren't good enough to reach that status in their minds even though the State Department's own studies show a need for international support for gays and lesbians. This is a change in policy from 2002 in which the U.S. supported such groups.

So, why the change now? Changing political tide that tells our people that gays are evil and not worthy of rights? I can't see any other reason. Why would the right-wing, anti-gay crowd care about gay people getting beaten and murdered by governments? Apparently the U.S. doesn't.

Let's look at who voted with us (and against gays): Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

Good company- Iran kills people for having gay relationships, and the President of Zimbabwe has said that gay people aren't deserving of any (yes any) rights.

Here's who voted the right way: Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania.

Very interesting. Oppressive, authoritarian regimes vote like us. Free nations vote opposite us. Somehow that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Here's a letter a bunch of gay groups wrote to Condoleeza Rice. I wonder if she'll listen: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12536.htm.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

"Homosexuality is a Very Difficult Lifestyle"

Well, Alan Chambers is at it again. Today he's mad at the mainstream media, and more specifically Brokeback Mountain for not telling people the truth that, "homosexuality is a very difficult lifestyle."

Well, I guess I'm angry at him for NEVER acknowledging that not all gay people live difficult lives. Wouldn't that be the honest thing to say? Really, if we are being completely honest and are interested in complete honesty (and sinlessness--is that a word?) wouldn't it be more honest to say that there at least some gay people that are happy? Or that being gay is not a "difficult lifestyle" for everyone? Or that trying to be straight sometimes makes things worse?

Also, since when did Brokeback Mountain show how easy it is to be gay? All I learned from the movie was that it sure did suck to be gay and live in rural Montana or Texas in the 1960's (ok, I learned more than that, but the movie sure did show how hard it is/was to be gay--probably just not in the way Alan Chambers wanted it portrayed).

And, how many times can Agape Press really put out a press release from Exodus or featuring an Exodus leader about Brokeback Mountain? I mean, really.

Also, doesn't it seem kind of weird that they mention his family life as bio on this article? I'm guessing they are doing that to show how straight he is. If that's the case, should they mention his kids are adopted? Just asking, I know that's kind of mean, but it seems like an odd addition.

Oh- hat tip to Ex-Gay Watch for the link (for some reasons their comments are closed on the post, though)

Gay Resource Site

I haven't been able to go through this site (Box Turtle Bulletin) at length yet, but it looks very nicely done. I'll be over there looking around soon. I love the title.

I also saw TransAmerica last night. Great movie--definitely worth watching. Yes, it's about a transexual, but no it is not a piece of pro-transexual or pro-gay propaganda. Sometimes movies are just good on merit and don't have some sort of underlying "destroy the world" message behdind them.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

End of the Spear- Take II

It looks like the attacks on the casting of openly gay Chad Allen as a missionary in the new movie "End of the Spear" are heating up. While the 700 Club still appears to be supporting the movie, it links to several articles that are clearly unhappy with the decision to cast Allen.

Conspiracy theorists are hypothesizing that the casting company got Allen as an intentional affront to Christians everywhere. First let me say that I'm a Christian, and I'm not upset by this decision, so they don't speak for all Christians.

Second, let me just ask if they maybe just went with the best actor for the role? Isn't that how parts are usually cast- because people are the best actors for the role, period?

Third, I wonder if they would scrutinize a non-gay actor in the film. From what I remember, Mel Gibson isn't the squeakiest of clean Christians, but no one really got on him for The Passion.

It's the gay thing. Don't let anyone tell you that our society or most Christians view it like any other sin. It certainly gets all the attention. I wonder if the other sins are jealous.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

The Next "Passion of the Christ"

I'm not sure if any of you have heard about the next great Christian movie that is soon to hit theaters, but Pastors across the country including my personal favorite Pat Robertson have come out to call Christians across the world to go see "End of the Spear."

It's a movie about the great works of a Christian missionary in Ecuador. It looks like a good movie from what I've seen so far.

There's one small catch that I don't think a lot of people have caught on to, and that's that openly gay actor Chad Allen is playing a starring role.

I, of course, don't have a problem with Chad playing the role. I'm glad he is in the movie. I'm just thinking that with all the uproar about gays recently, certain people might be kinda upset about a gay person in this role. Some less high profile people already are (in the comments). I hope the majority continue to stay out of the bickering.

Read Pam's take on the movie here.

Interestingly enough, Chad's bio on the movie's website doesn't mention that he is gay.

Friday, January 20, 2006

This is Catchy

This little song, produced for a right wing radio show here in Houston, is kind of catchy. I think it's worth a listen. It's actually kind of funny, but somehow I think a slew of gay jokes coming from an anti-gay radio show isn't that funny--especially when he preceded this song with his best "gay impression," lisp and all.

For all of those people that keep telling me how easy and cool it is to be gay, keep this in mind. It's not that this is really that big of a deal in my everyday life but the joke is at the expense of gay people and as long as this is completely accepted in society, we've got a long way to go.

Can you imagine if this were a song about black people, women, Christians, jews? You get the idea.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Apology Schmapology

Seriously, at some point some of these famous people out there are going to have to take some responsibility for what they say.

How many times am I going to have to see Pat Robertson say something and then turn around and apologize for it. He did with with his absurd comments about 9/11 and he did it recently for his comments about Ariel Sharon. Look- he obviously meant these things or he wouldn't say them. Does he not feel guilty at all for saying things and then apologizing over and over?

Terrell Owens is a perfect example of a non-politician doing the same thing. I'm glad someone finally cracked the whip on him and made him pay for his antics.

Then you've got all the others. Dan Rather. Bill Clinton. Jerry Falwell. It's like these guys are making a career out of saying something and then apologizing when someone gets mad.

Say it or don't, just don't keep on apologizing.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

This is What I'm Talking About

A local conservative talk show host here in Houston has been cracking Brokeback Mountain jokes all week because of the Golden Globes, and he spent the good portion of one show ripping into the movie with his callers.

Ironically, only one of the callers had even seen the movie, and she admitted to liking it. That's my point- if you don't like a movie's theme, don't see it. But, awards shows are about the ARTISTIC MERIT of a movie, not about how PC the theme is.

Really- think of all of the movies that have won big awards ever. None of them fall into the category of "moral" movies, but as long as they don't talk about gays, they're A-Ok.

Moving on. Here's an example of deception by ommission by Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International. Again, this is what I was talking about in a post just a few down. He implies that all gays are living bad, suffering lives, and he wants to give that implication.

I just don't see this statement as a moral way to handle the issue, especially since he knows a). There are people who tell him and others that they are happy, and healthy and b). he knows that there are people out there that are unhappy with the treatment and counseling they received as part of Exodus.

I'm not too worried about excluding the fact that there are many many unsuccesful and unhappy Exodus clients (more unsuccessful than successful, even if you ask him). I'm more concerned that his words always paint gays in such a negative light. I'm a very happy and fulfilled person, but his words imply that I simply don't exist.

He constantly claims gay people and the APA, the AMA, etc. are telling him he doesn't exist because they say ex-gay therapy doesn't work, while he is telling me that I don't exist by constantly painting gay life as negative, unhappy, etc., which is the exact opposite of my life.

I'd hope for more compassion and understanding.

Here's what he says:

"Chambers, himself a former homosexual, says that while some of the themes in both movies explore the unhappiness, pain and promiscuity in gay life, the overarching premise sends the wrong message to Americans about culture and sexuality."

Make no mistake. He said "in gay life." Not "for some gays," not "for people that don't want to be SSA." He's painting a picture of "gay life" for all people when it simply is not true for all gay people.

Monday, January 16, 2006

Virginia- It's not for Lovers Anymore

After Virginia moved one step closer to anti-gaying it's Constitution recently, one representative stood up and said what was on his mind. It's worth the read over at Pam's House Blend.

The speech is worth reposting (and re-reading again and again). My favorite quote is, "that message is, if you are gay, or lesbian, or even a man and a woman living together and committed to each other who are not married, you are not welcome in the Commonwealth of Virginia."

It's true. This Amendment has nothing to do with protecting families. It does nothing to make divorce harder, to make it harder to get married in the first place, to offer marriage counseling to newlyweds, to help avoid single parenting. It only blames another group for a problem they haven't been allowed to be a part of anyway. Unfortunately, the blame-shifters are going to find out how wrong they were when nothing changes.

Here's the rest of it:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I'm not going to talk about same-sex marriage. I'm no fool -- although others might make a different judgement about a freshman delegate rising in this chamber on the third day of session. But I understand that on the issue of marriage, I'm in the minority, perhaps even in my own caucus. I also sleep very well at night knowing that at some point in the future of this great Commonwealth, those of us of my opinion will be judged to have been on the right side of history. But let's for a moment forget about the question of same-sex marriage, because this amendment addresses much more than that. We need to be clear and honest: This amendment also outlaws civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar private legal arrangements.

We have heard from the other side that this constitutional amendment is necessary to protect conventional marriage. I am blessed with a beautiful and brilliant wife who is the love of my life. In June, Shayna and I will celebrate our tenth wedding anniversary, and I would fight with every ounce of my strength anything that would threaten my marriage. So I would like to know, how exactly civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my marriage?

We have heard from the other side that this amendment will protect families. Shayna and I are blessed with a strong and bright six-year-old son, Caleb, and we have a strong family. My friend the gentleman from Rockingham County, Delegate Lohr, and I have discussed how we come from different backgrounds and different parts of this great Commonwealth, yet we share a deep and abiding commitment to our families. I want nothing more than to protect my family. I spent 12 years wearing the uniform of the United States Air Force to protect my family. I've been in harm's way to protect my family. So I would like to know, how exactly do civil unions and domestic partnerships and other similar arrangements threaten my family? Because if they do, I will be the first one to stand up and fight, because nobody better threaten my family.

Moreover, we have heard from the other side that this amendment must pass sooner rather than later, as if there is some kind of crisis that is more important than issues like transportation or education or health care. Why else would this be our first order of business? Yet Virginia law already makes same-sex marriage and civil unions and domestic partnerships illegal.

So if this amendment doesn't help protect my marriage, and doesn't help protect my family, and if it doesn't even change the status of same-sex marriage and civil unions and domestic partnership contracts, then what exactly does this amendment do? I submit to my fair-minded colleagues that this amendment sends a message. And that message is, if you are gay, or lesbian, or even a man and a woman living together and committed to each other who are not married, you are not welcome in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

And who are these people whom we are shutting out in the cold? They are my dear friends Karen and Sue, who have been together for years and are as loving and committed to each other as any husband and wife. They are my friend Lou, who served with me at the Pentagon, and continues to serve our country today. They are Father Mychal Judge, the gay priest who died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 while ministering to fallen firefighters. They are Mark Bingham, a gay passenger on United Airlines Flight 93, who fought back against Al Queda hijackers and sacrificed his life to save others. They are Ronald Gamboa and his partner Dan Brandhorst, who, along with their 3 year old son David, were killed when Al Quaeda flew United Airlines Flight 175 into the World Trade Center. They are David Charlebois, the co-pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon when Al Qaeda tried to kill me and my comrades who were on duty inside the Pentagon at the time. They are friends and neighbors and teachers and doctors and soldiers and loving parents who want nothing more than to live life without fear that the government will tear their families apart.

I'm a student of history, and I find our Founding Fathers to be a great source of wisdom on many matters, so I want to close my remarks by reading from a letter that great Virginian named George Washington wrote more than two centuries ago:

"The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind . . . a policy worthy of imitation.

All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Ladies and gentlemen, I implore you, be strong and of good courage and vote down this resolution.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Randy Thomas got quoted pretty heavily for an editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently. He writes about it on his blog here.

I wanted to point to part of what he says. Here it is:

"We’re here for those who want our help,” says Thomas. It faces hostility from gay-rights groups that Thomas says reach the same conclusion as Phelps, that sexuality trumps all and people can’t change. He believes that’s untrue - “we are not walking sexualities,” he says - and that it’s turning culture into warfare.
“That polarization has caused so much pain and suffering,” he says."

I really just have to disagree, and I think this statement leads to polarization of its own.

I haven't seen any gay groups outwardly say that people are "walking sexualities." I'm sure that's not what he means, but I want to start there. To say gay groups have reached the same conclusions regarding sexuality as Fred Phelps takes things a bit too far.

I personally don't think telling people that it is ok to be gay is the same as telling them that they are nothing more than their sexuality. I haven't done full research on this, but I don't think any of the large gay groups say that people specifically can't change. Saying that there is no hard evidence supporting reparative therapy or changing from gay to straight is one thing. But, saying that absolutely no one can change is quite another, and I don't think gay groups say that, but it is what Randy implies.

I'll put it this way. I think it's ok to be gay. I don't think there is hard evidence that switching from gay to straight works (I realize some people, like Randy, say they have changed. I'm not doubting that, but anecdotal evidence like that is not actual proof in any science). If ex-gay groups wanted some evidence, they surely could track that sort of thing. Their whole organizations rest on the ideas that gays (all gays) can change, so why wouldn't they look for hard, solid evidence to back them up? Why not follow their members in longitudinal studies.

Can some people change? Maybe. Probably. But going around telling people that it is ok to be gay is certainly not saying that people are nothing more than their sexuality. It's saying that gay people are just the same as straight people, and they should be treated as such. Comparing that statement to the belief of Fred Phelps (any belief) is unfortunate. I hope Randy can see how a comparison like that is unfair, especially since I am sure he has been victim to similar comparisons--which are also unfair.

Beer for Ballboys

I realize that beer companies (and most companies for that matter) use young, attractive people in their commercials to make their product look fun and exciting, but sometimes they go a bit too far.

I'm sure you've heard the "Real Men of Genius" radio ads for Budweiser (or is it Bud Light?). Either way, I heard one the other day in honor of the "basketball sweat wiper-upper," and it kind of caught me off guard.

I'm not sure how it works in the entire NBA, but I know my hometown team uses kids (usually junior high and high school kids) to wipe and sweep the basketball courts during games. Two of my high school friends used to do this when we were younger.

So, the ad ends by encouraging, the "sweat wiper-upper" to grab an ice cold Bud Light after a hard days work. Do they not do their research over there? They're talking about KIDS!

What's next, encouraging lemonade stand workers to grab a beer after a long day of earning their allowance money?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

See- TV Really Does Rot Your Brain

Pam over at Pam's House Blend is reporting that a local affiliate has been receiving numerous (this used to say "numberous," I really should proofread my stuff) death threats because they are airing the NBC show "The Book of Daniel." They even had to bring in security cards and the cops. Yikes.

I'll admit that I am hesitant about the show. The previews make it look like it spends a bit too much time "poking" at Christians. But, I haven't seen it, so I am not really sure what the context is. I wonder if these people making threats have seen it. And, is the show really about all Christians, or this really messed up Christian?

Regardless, is threatening someone's life really the best way to show how Christian you are?

Pam's putting the blame on the AFA. I'm not so quick to say that, but I will agree partly and remind people that words have consequences...

Monday, January 09, 2006

Free Palm Readings

Want to know what 2006 has in store for you?

Well, you could ask Miss Cleo of the Psychic Friends Hotline, or you could just go ask Pat Robertson.

Here's what he predicts for the upcoming year...
"Bush is going to strengthen in 2006. The fall elections will be inconclusive, but the outcome of the war and the success of the economy will leave Republicans in charge…. And Alito is gonna get confirmed. I believe another liberal judge is going to retire, step down from the Court; we’ll have another opening there. The war in Iraq is going to come to a successful conclusion, and we’ll begin withdrawing troops before the end of the year."

He also predicted that the coasts were going to be lashed with more disasters as God comes in to punish the sinners and those that aren't keeping his Commandments. I'm not sure if that includes that one about the Sabbath or not.

There's more. You really should click on the link and read the quotes. Unbelievable, really.

Also, the White House didn't agree with Pat Robertson's take on Ariel Sharon's "punishment" from God for dividing his land. Actually, they seemed pretty upset about it calling it "wholly inappropriate." Good for them.

Preacher Resigns

The Oklahoma Pastor that got arrested for soliciting sex from a police officer just resgined. From Pam's House Blend.

Did he have any choice in the matter? Would he have resigned if he had been caught in another sinful state?

Friday, January 06, 2006

God's Wrath Strikes Again

Pat Robertson blamed Ariel Sharon's recent stroke and poor health on some sort of divine retribution yesterday for dividing God's land. It sure is strange the God keeps personally punishing people. What is this, ancient Greece?

Oh, and does this mean God is punishing all elderly people? I mean, Sharon is no spring chicken, so his getting ill was just a matter of time, was it not?

Thursday, January 05, 2006

So, This is Sad

Ex-Gay Watch has a good point about the repercussions of this guy being arrested for simply asking someone for a hook-up. Is just talking about sex against the law? They also bring up how the Lawrence v. Texas ruling may help this Pastor avoid jail, even though most religious conservatives (maybe even him) were adamantly opposed to the ruling.

In Oklahoma a Pastor that disagrees with homosexuality, and has spoken out against it, was arrested for propositioning a police officer. To follow that up, after being let go he presumably lied by saying that he had been set up (he may be telling the truth, but somehow I doubt it).

The article doesn't mention if he offered to pay for the services. Is it against the law just to talk about it?

I hope at the very least this gives him some perspective.

Hat tip: AmericaBlog

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

It's Not Crime, It's Not Poor Education, It's THE GAYS!

Yep, it's true--Lou Sheldon thinks the biggest problem facing the inner-city today is homosexuality. Not crime, not poor education, not drugs, but gays.

Unbelievable. But this is the same guy that claimed a direct link between gays and pedophelia, so I should have expected this. I just feel sorry for the people that actually believe this guy.

Thanks to Ex-Gay Watch for the link.

Monday, January 02, 2006

A War on Christmas??

Over the last few years, it's been pretty hard to ignore the call from many conservatives about a war on Christmas. From hollywood to the "liberal elite" media to nearly every major retail company in the world, apparently everyone out there wants to make Christmas non-existant. Oh wait, let's not forget most of the government too.

My boyfriend emailed me this op-ed from the NYT (the actual article requires registration on the NYT page, so I linked to this one) that calls Bill O'Reilly out specifically for basically making up this "war on Christmas." The piece mentions that O'Reilly (or maybe Fox News as a whole, I couldn't tell) ran 58 stories about this alleged war on Christmas. The point, of course, is that whether or not this attack exists, certain people are blowing this thing way out of porportion. 58 stories on the war on Christmas and 0 about genocide during this period. Is that where their priorities are?

Here's the deal. Yes, it sucks that stores call Christmas Trees Holiday Trees now (I find this absurd, btw). It sucks that retailers say Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas (if you're Christian, that is). But, it makes sense. If by calling Christmas Trees Holiday trees, they are able to get even a small percentage of non-Christians to buy the tree, they earn more money. If saying Happy Holidays means Jews and Muslims also shop during this time, it means more money. This isn't about ending Christianity, it's about pure capitalism. But, Bill O'Reilly and the others know this, they just don't want you to know it.

I thought conservatives liked capitalism. But, what many of them like more is playing the victim card. Everyone loves to support a victim, and some conservatives have realized that playing victim gets them more support. Think about it. Colleges are run by liberal elites, as is the mainstream media. Hollywood hates anything conservative, or even moral for that matter. Governments are restricting Christian speech and idea in schools, and no one really likes Christians if you believe what you are told.

They're playing the underdog card, and unfortunately many people believe it without looking a bit further into the facts. Hopefully this oh-so-liberal-media will one day be as liberal as the far right claims they are and actually call some of this victimhood out for what it is.

Like I've said before, conservatives are the new hippies--the man is always getting them down. Just don't tell Rush Limbaugh.