It Gets Better

Sadly, so many gay teens committed suicide recently because of relentless bullying in school that Dan Savage, an openly gay sex-advice columnist decided to start It Gets Better, a web site where people who understand how hard it is to live through adolescence but who made it through and saw it get better can leave messages for teenagers.

This is perhaps the most poignant video I’ve seen so far, by Councilmember Joel Burns:

I understand very well how hard those years are.  I too was bullied and called names all the time.  I never wanted to leave the safety of my own bedroom just to avoid all that pain.  And I was terrified that my parents would find out and of what would follow.

But I can also attest that it does get better.  Those years eventually pass and you move on to other schools or jobs, other cities and people.  You’ll meet other gay people who will start to become your circle of friends.  And one day, when you least expect it, you’ll meet that one special person who will turn your world upside down.

I know it’s hard, especially when you’re so young and the thought of waiting until it' gets better is daunting, but you have to believe that if you give up and kill yourself, you will never experience all the beautiful things that life has to offer.  And there are so many.

Hang in there.  It does get better.

Can a man have sex with another man and not think of himself as a homosexual?

Yes, according to Afghan men belonging to the Pashtun ethnic group:

An unclassified study from a military research unit in southern Afghanistan details how homosexual behavior is unusually common among men in the large ethnic group known as Pashtuns -- though they seem to be in complete denial about it.

The study, obtained by Fox News, found that Pashtun men commonly have sex with other men, admire other men physically, have sexual relationships with boys and shun women both socially and sexually -- yet they completely reject the label of "homosexual."

Apparently, according to the report, Pashtun men interpret the Islamic prohibition on homosexuality to mean they cannot "love" another man -- but that doesn't mean they can't use men for "sexual gratification."

The U.S. army medic also told members of the research unit that she and her colleagues had to explain to a local man how to get his wife pregnant.

The report said: "When it was explained to him what was necessary, he reacted with disgust and asked, 'How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean, when one could be with a man, who is clean? Surely this must be wrong.'"

The report also detailed a disturbing practice in which older "men of status" keep young boys on hand for sexual relationships. One of the country's favorite sayings, the report said, is "women are for children, boys are for pleasure."

Sounds to me like these guys are quite retrograde and confused, especially about the technical definition of homosexuality, which is “Sexual activity with another of the same sex.”

Here’s the link to the FoxNews.com article.

Is homosexuality a lifestyle?

It is according to many on the religious right, but if you ask any gay or lesbian individual, they'll undoubtedly tell you it's not.

Homosexuality is not a choice, it's a personality trait you're born with, just like some people are born optimists and others pessimists.

Here's a very interesting video on the developments of scientific research into the topic. Twins were analyzed. One is gay and the other straight.

Watch:

More evidence homosexuality is genetic

This New York Times article about new findings in the way human sexuality works has very interesting information, among which:

Desire between the sexes is not a matter of choice. Straight men, it seems, have neural circuits that prompt them to seek out women; gay men have those prompting them to seek other men. Women’s brains may be organized to select men who seem likely to provide for them and their children. The deal is sealed with other neural programs that induce a burst of romantic love, followed by long-term attachment.
[...]
Sexual orientation, at least for men, seems to be settled before birth. “I think most of the scientists working on these questions are convinced that the antecedents of sexual orientation in males are happening early in life, probably before birth,” Dr. Breedlove said, “whereas for females, some are probably born to become gay, but clearly some get there quite late in life.”
[...]
The finding suggests that male homosexuality in these cases is caused by some event in the womb, such as “a maternal immune response to succeeding male pregnancies,” Dr. Bogaert wrote last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Antimale antibodies could perhaps interfere with the usual masculinization of the brain that occurs before birth, though no such antibodies have yet been detected.

And this was also interesting:

Romantic love, which in its intense early stage “can last 12-18 months,” is a universal human phenomenon, Dr. Fisher wrote last year in The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and is likely to be a built-in feature of the brain. Brain imaging studies show that a particular area of the brain, one associated with the reward system, is activated when subjects contemplate a photo of their lover.

I guess that's why I love looking at pictures of Ray.

The despicable tampering by the Vatican

In Italy, it is well known that the Vatican has "secretly" been involved in the government politics since the dawn of the Republic, always trying to influence laws to its benefit (hell, the party in power for 40 years after WWII, "Christian Democracy" was nothing but a puppet of the Pope).

Things haven't apparently changed much:

A directive by Italian bishops ordering Catholic politicians to vote against gay rights legislation has caused a political uproar and prompted fresh charges of Church interference in domestic affairs.

The long-awaited note, issued on Wednesday by the Italian Bishops Conference, was significant because it specifically targeted politicians as they consider a law to give homosexual and heterosexual unmarried couples more rights.
[...]
The note said Catholic politicians had "the moral duty to clearly and publicly voice their disagreement and vote against any proposed law that would recognize homosexual couples".

While some Catholic and centrist politicians welcomed the directive as food for thought, other lawmakers and civil rights groups condemned it as outright interference.

This is what smart politicians had to say:

"This continuous, daily interference by the Church in parliament's activity is intolerable," said leftist senator Luisa Boccia. "What's next, excommunication?"

Another leftist politician, Pino Sgobio, said the Vatican had to realize that unmarried couples are a fact of life and parliament had a duty to pass laws to protect the rights of people who have decided not to marry.

Excellent point. At the end of the day, this is what it all comes down to. Gays and lesbians are citizens of the country they belong to whether heterosexuals like it or not. They work and pay taxes like their heterosexual counterparts.

In some way, their rights have got to be protected and enforced. If homosexuals cannot take advantage of the same tools that are provided to heterosexuals, then some other kind of tool must be provided to them so that their livelihoods aren't threatened.

One thing is certain, the Church feels threatened by this measure and will do all it can to protect its power over Italy's everyday life, even if this means unleashing its harshest and most bigoted attack dogs:

Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who was appointed last month to head the Italian Bishops Conference, is leading the Church's campaign against the legislation which the Vatican says would weaken the institution of marriage.

The “DICO” Bill's supporters have already criticised the Church for what they see as interference in politics, but comments by Archbishop Bagnasco, reported in newspapers, have further incensed the gay lobby.

“Why say 'no' to forms of legally recognised co-habitation which create alternatives to the family? Why say 'no' to incest?” he said at a meeting of Church workers, according to a report in La Repubblica daily.

“Why say 'no' to the pedophile party in Holland?” he said, referring to the Dutch Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party which wants to cut the age of consent from 16 to 12 and legalise child pornography.

Hmm, how about because incest and pedophilia have nothing to do with homosexuality?

That's outrageous. This guy's a fucking moron, because there's plenty of scientific evidence that shows that incest and homophobia have nothing to do with homosexuality. But naturally, why say the truth when a lie can smear a whole segment of the population, the very segment that threatens your fucked up institution?

These people should be shunned by all reasonable individuals for their unethical and shameless practices.

God, I hate the Church.

Links here and here.

Republicans: Stop thinking about gay sex

A great editorial that totally deserves mentioning on this blog and should be passed around to anyone who pontificates on the evilness of same-sex marriages and the sacredness of heterosexual marriages.

The writer, Jeff Stevens, is reporting about the introduction by a state lawmaker of a proposed amendment to the New Mexico State Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and he's none too pleased, but not because he's for or against it, but simply because he feels it's "a colossal waste of time" and resources.

First, he makes the simple and obvious point that Republicans are obsessed with gays (simply because they can use them to win votes at the polls by firing up their religion-crazed base):

It seems to me Republicans spend more time thinking about gay sex than any other group of people in the known world even more so than gay people trying to find other gay people with whom to have sex.

He then ponders whether there are any other more pressing issues that should be debated and tackled before worrying whether gays can marry or not:

Evidently, every New Mexican makes a decent living wage. No child will go to bed tonight with an empty stomach, because they are all well fed. For that matter, no child will go to bed with an empty mind because our education system is tops in the world.

Evidently our streets are free of drugs. Every New Mexican has a job and can feed their families with a $5.15 minimum wage. Our roads are the best in the nation. Everyone in the state has access to affordable health care.

We can only assume such is the case, because Vaughn isn't seeking to amend the Constitution to solve any of those problems. No. The most important item on her agenda is to make sure that gay people can't marry one another in the state of New Mexico.

This, in and of itself, is a great argument, but he also counters the amendment to ban same-sex marriage with a different, more practical one:

How about instead we pass a constitutional amendment that defines a family as a group of people who love one another and don't do harm to each other. That way it would be unconstitutional for people to verbally and physically abuse their own.

But this is the best part of his rebuttal:

Or since, by her own admission, the Bible is the basis for Vaughn's desire to constitutionally define marriage, let's take that definition directly from the Bible.

"Therefore what God has put together, let man not separate." That passage can be found in Mathew 19:16 and if my ability to divine what the author had in mind is worth anything, under that definition, divorce. folks, would be unconstitutional.

We all know that won't work because, church and state issues aside, applying the Bible to modern society doesn't work. The Bible hasn't changed in 1,500 years but the world has.

What a wise and effective argument. His conclusion is astoundingly simple and self evident: the Bible hasn't changed in 1,500 years, but the world has. We see this everyday with our own eyes, and yet, there are people who insist on expecting us to live by it by the letter. That's crazy.

And let's not forget Mr. Stevens' other good point: have all more pressing problems, like health care and poverty, been solved or should we worry about those first?

We need more people like...

Retired Archbishop of Cape Town, South Africa, Desmond Tutu, who, on Friday, urged the African Anglican church to "concentrate on the continent's grim problems rather than on the row over gay clergy, and said persecuting gay people is akin to racism":

"I am deeply disturbed that in the face of some of the most horrendous problems facing Africa, we concentrate on 'what do I do in bed with whom'," the South African Nobel Laureate Tutu told a news conference in Nairobi.

"For one to penalise someone for their sexual orientation is the same as penalising someone for something they can do nothing about, like ethnicity or race. I cannot imagine persecuting a minority group which is already being persecuted."
[...]
"The God I worship would not consider that [gay clergy] to be a priority concern," Tutu said, adding that churches should instead be thinking about poverty, HIV/AIDS and conflict resolution.

Amen. It seems so basic to me, why doesn't the church realize that too? Why aren't Africans up in arms over the church's stance over gays when they have so many problems like poverty, malnutrition, AIDS, other life threatening diseases, famine, droughts, wars, sectarian violence, genocide, corruption and on and on to worry about?

Do they really think that all those things aren't as bad as letting two guys love and have sex with each other? Is it really ok if millions of Africans die each day for causes not related to gays at all as long as gays are persecuted, mistreated, and not recognized as human beings?

If that's the case, than, I'm sorry to say, but all those who feel that way really do deserve their fate.

The anti-gay hormone therapy

Well, this is quite scary. Scientists are trying to quell the homosexual instincts in rams by altering their hormone levels, and foresee a future when a mother will be able to stave off any chances that her child will be gay by wearing a hormone patch that will prevent it:

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

By varying the hormone levels, mainly by injecting hormones into the brain, they have had “considerable success” in altering the rams’ sexuality, with some previously gay animals becoming attracted to ewes.
[...]
Potentially, the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents pre-natal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of a child.

And to anyone who thinks that such a research wouldn't be exploited for eugenics-type experiments, check out this guy's comment:

Michael Bailey, a neurology professor at Northwestern University near Chicago, said: “Allowing parents to select their children’s sexual orientation would further a parent’s freedom to raise the sort of children they want to raise.”

This professor has a very valid point, that puts the whole issue into context:

Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said: “I don’t believe the motives of the study are homophobic, but their work brings the terrible possibility of exploitation by homophobic societies. Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example.

One more comment:

Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said: “These experiments echo Nazi research in the early 1940s which aimed at eradicating homosexuality. They stink of eugenics. There is a danger that extreme homophobic regimes may try to use these experimental results to change the orientation of gay people.”

Ladies and gentlemen, they're officially plotting our extinction.

Compensation

I didn't know that gays in Spain had been treated, under Franco's brutal regime, as bad as the Nazis did in their internment camps. The Spanish government is apparently going to compensate the few survivors for their suffering:

The Spanish government may offer money to those who were sent to mental hospitals, tortured, imprisoned or who suffered a lifetime of persecution. The Spanish Justice Minister, Juan Fernando López Aguilar, is considering granting victims a pension of €800 (£540) a month, plus a one-off €12,000 payment for what they suffered under the regime. It could be introduced in two months.

Many homosexuals were prevented from working under the Franco dictatorship because of their "criminal" records, meaning they never contributed enough money to receive more than the minimum pension.
[...]
During Franco's homophobic dictatorship, gays were jailed or locked up in sinister mental institutions known as "correction camps". With echoes of the Nazi atrocities against gays, they were given electric shocks in the belief that this would rid them of their homosexual urges. Inmates were forced to watch pornographic films featuring women in an effort to show them a sex life that was deemed "natural" by the conservative authorities.

More on the treatment they received:

Homosexuality was designated as an offence under the "law against delinquency and criminals" introduced in 1954. But towards the end of Franco's regime, it was increasingly viewed as an illness rather than a crime. In 1968, the psychologist Lopez Ibor said: "Homosexuals should be seen more as sick people than as criminals. But the law should still prevent them proselytising in schools, sports clubs and army barracks." Jail terms of up to three years were imposed under laws covering "public scandal" or "social danger".

And this was a shocker to me too, since I always thought Spain was a fairly liberal country after Franco died:

Even after Franco died, persecution of gays continued. They could be jailed until 1979. And although thousands of political and other prisoners were pardoned in 1976, gay people were made to serve their sentences. In 2001, Spain finally pledged to wipe clean the criminal records of gays convicted under Franco.

Unbelievable.

I'm glad the government is finally doing something to right the many wrongs these people had to suffer.

Too bad many haven't lived to see this day.

The rise of the machines

Interesting article from CNN about one day robots being smart and independent enough to demand civil rights for themselves, and the consequences of such an occurrence:

Robots might one day be smart enough to demand emancipation from their human owners, raising the prospects they'll have to be treated as citizens, according to a speculative paper released by the British government.

Among the warnings: a "monumental shift" could occur if robots were developed to the point where they could reproduce, improve or think for themselves.

"Correctly managed, there is a very real possibility for increased labor output and greater intelligence to be provided by robots that will ultimatly lead to greater human prosperity and an improvement of the human condition," it said.

However, it warned that robots could sue for their rights if these were denied to them.

Should they prove successful, the paper said, "states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time."

I just have one request. Could gays' civil rights be recognized before we give them to machines, or at least at the same time? At the rate we're going, they might see them before we do.

I wonder if robots can be gay... Would gay robots earn their civil rights before human gays?

Will I be proven wrong?

A while back I was talking to some friend from Italy about gay marriage in Europe, where it's starting to pop up in some nations, and in Italy, and I remember saying that I believed I wouldn't have seen it legalized in that country in my lifetime.

Two article I saw this morning are making me think I might have spoken too soon. First I read that the northern city of Padova became the first in the nation to set up a domestic partner registry for unmarried couples. Then I read that a resolution to allow civil unions has been introduced in the Senate.

I thought wow!! I doubt the Senate measure has any good chances of passing, but the town's decision is final. Gay couples can already register there as a family.

The Church, as expected, was up in arms, denouncing the decision as a first step toward legalization of same-sex marriage and allowing gays to adopt children, and it will most certainly do everything it can to stop the Senate measure and stop the domestic partner registry in Padova, if possible.

But at least someone finally acknowledge the (pink) 800 pound gorilla in the room, and, as we've seen happen in the US time and time again, visibility ultimately is our most formidable weapon, because heterosexuals are just scared of us and feel threatened because they don't know us. Visibility shows them that there's nothing to fear, no threat, and ultimately just exposes our enemies' hatred and bigotry.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

From the Herald Tribune:

The city of Padua has become the first in Italy to allow gay couples to have their partnerships legally recognized, prompting swift criticism from the Vatican's official newspaper.

Padua's city council voted Monday night to allow unmarried cohabiting couples — including gays — to obtain official certificates recognizing them as "a family founded on bonds of affection."
[...]
However, a city spokeswoman sought to distance the move from family politics, saying it was intended to simplify bureaucracy for those living nontraditional lifestyles.

"This is for couples who don't want to get married, couples who are living together who want to register that they are cohabiting. It could be useful for a number of things," city spokeswoman Donatella Gasperi said Wednesday. "It's not necessarily for gays, but if two gays come in, they will be registered."

From 365gay.com:

Italy's Senate on Thursday passed a motion calling on the government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi to bring in legislation creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

It said it wants the bill by the end of next month.

The motion cited "the growing debate within politics and public opinion concerning common law unions and the rights and duties stemming from them," and said that the bill should "recognize the rights, including regarding taxes, of persons in de facto relationships".
[...]
The coalition has been working on a bill that would be similar to Britain's civil partnership law which grants all the rights of marriage but not the name.

And this was our Holy Father's usual gracious and loving reaction:

Pope Benedict warned Prodi's government on Thursday that the Vatican will use all of its power to thwart any move to recognize same-sex couples.

Such a charmer the Pope, isn't he.

The Church runs the risk of being ridiculed for its stance on gays

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a well respected Baptist minister and he has a message for his peers: stop picking on gays when it's increasingly clear homosexuality isn't a choice or history will not look kindly on religion:

It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.

He goes on to undermine the argument made by the gay bashers that "they are right to do so because the Bible tells them that homosexuality is wrong" by giving examples of why it's wrong to use the Bible as the baseline, since the Bible blasts far more than the gays:

As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

His best point is this:

The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex.

He's so right. The Bible should not even be used to judge gays' rights because it was written 2,000 years ago and if you think it applies to today, then you have to apply it to everything, not just the gays.

Here's the link to the article.

Exhibition on homosexuality among animals draws crowds

The exhibit, named "Against Nature?", is in Oslo, Norway, and the purpose is to show how homosexuality is rather common in the animal world, and should therefore be viewed as a natural occurrence among humans as well:

[T]here has been strong interest in an aspect of animal behaviour the museum says is quite common.
[...]
"Homosexuality is a common and widespread phenomenon in the animal world," says an exhibition statement.

"Not only short-lived sexual relationships, but even long-lasting partnerships; partnerships that may last a lifetime."
[...]
It says sex between animals - as between humans - is often a matter of enjoyment, rather than procreation, and that this applies to animals of the same sex as well as opposite sexes.

And the best part is this:

In Norway there was a desire among publicly funded museums to be "deliverers of truth" and to "put on display controversial subjects, things that are not said and are swept under the carpet".

The museum says one of its aims is to "help to de-mystify homosexuality among people... we hope to reject the all too well known argument that homosexual behaviour is a crime against nature".

Thankfully, enlightened minds still roam this planet. Now, if we could only get one in the White House...

A voice of reason within the Anglican Church

Desmond Tutu's new biography is about to come out, and in it he declares that the Anglican Church's stand on homosexuality and gays in the church made him ashamed of being part of it:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in the first authorized biography of the Nobel peace laureate, said he was ashamed of his Anglican Church's conservative position that rejected gay priests.
[...]
The retired archbishop was critical of Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams for bowing on the gay priest issue to conservative elements, particularly African bishops, in the 77-million member Anglican Church that includes Episcopalians in the United States.

In a 1998 letter to Williams predecessor, Archbishop George Carey, Tutu wrote that he was "ashamed to be Anglican." It came after the Lambeth Conference of Bishops rejected the ordination of practicing homosexuals saying their sexual relations were "incompatible with scripture."

Tutu also said he was deeply saddened at the furor caused by the appointment of openly gay V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. "He found it little short of outrageous that church leaders should be obsessed with issues of sexuality in the face of the challenges of AIDS and global poverty," wrote Allen.

It's so nice and refreshing to see that there are still voices of reason among the crazies.

And Tutu correctly points out that it is shameful on the part of any religious institution to cling to ideals of the past and close the doors to those who want to join them and help those in need when there is so much suffering and so much need in the world.

Uruguay stands up for gay's rights 2

This actually happened a while back, but I didn't know about it and I just found out.

Apparently, Montevideo, Uruguay's capital, is one of only five cities in the world to have a monument dedicated to gays and lesbians killed by the Nazis during WWII.

From CBSNews.com:

Uruguay has unveiled what gay activists say is the first monument in Latin America honoring sexual diversity.

The rose-colored block of granite shaped in the form of a triangle went up this week in the Uruguayan capital of Montevideo.

Set atop a concrete column, the monument is inscribed with the words: "Honoring Diversity is Honoring Life."
[...]
"From our little country we are telling the world that sexual diversity is something very positive," said Fernando Fontan, the head of a local gay rights group.

More from Americas.org:

Uruguay - Montevideo became the first city in Latin America and the fifth in the world to commemorate the homosexual victims of Nazism and to acknowledge the right of sexual diversity with a special monument and plaza.

"Honoring diversity is honoring life. Montevideo for the respect of all genders, sexual identities and orientations," reads a triangular granite monument in the heart of the Old City, 200 meters (656 feet) from the first Catholic church erected by Spanish Conquistadors in 1726.
[...]
The monument's shape and material were selected for precise reasons. In the concentration camps in World War II, the Nazis forced gay males to wear a pink triangular badge, while lesbians and prostitutes were forced to wear a black triangle. "The black and pink streaked granite combines both symbols," explained communal legislator Gabriel Weiss.

This is something very important. The Holocaust represents one of the most horrible tragedies ever happened to humanity and we should honor and remember all the peoples that were persecuted by the Nazi regime.

By the way, the other cities were you can find monuments honoring diversity are Amsterdam and Berlin in Europe, and New York and San Francisco in the United States.

I can't believe blacks are more anti-gay than whites

After all, they've been through enormous civil rights struggles to earn the freedoms they now enjoy, and despite that, they are still victims of racism, whether openly or not. How can they not see that gays and lesbians are victims of prejudice as much as them?

Thankfully, somebody does understand, and she's black:

The fight for gay rights is like our civil rights struggle, however, and it's hypocritical for groups that have had to fight long and hard to win their own constitutional rights to turn around and try to deny them to the next group. We're seeing this in the descendants of immigrant groups that were despised and vilified during their early days in this country, and that now want to deny recent immigrants the means to become lawful citizens.
[...]
I won't attempt to argue with the Scriptures, other than to say they reflect the mores and biases of the times they were written. And just as there are Scriptures ordering slaves to obey their masters, cautioning women to be silent in church and submissive at home, and applauding the persecution of the Jews because they killed Jesus, none of these positions is argued by enlightened people today.

I won't dismiss the beliefs of blacks who believe that homosexuality is immoral, but I'd caution them that morality has often been used as a cloak for old-fashioned bigotry, fear and discomfort with people and behaviors that are different.
[...]
I see marriage as a civil right, and no group's religious beliefs should be allowed to deny the rights of others. And because blacks have suffered from bigotry and injustice that were cloaked by religion and morality, we should avoid doing the same thing to others.

All Hail Mr. Livingstone!!

As in London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who spoke out in condemnation of the leaders of Estonia for failing to protect gays and lesbians during the recent violence that occurred at a Gay Pride parade there earlier this month:

"The failure of the police and political authorities in Tallinn to protect lesbian and gay citizens from violence during this year's peaceful Gay Pride parade is inexcusable. Having permitted the parade, and being aware of the potential for violence, Tallinn City Council and the city's police should have taken all reasonable steps to robustly defend the fundamental human rights of those taking part. I also deplore the violence at Gay Pride events this year in Latvia, Poland, Russia, Moldova and Romania and the encouragement given to right wing extremists by religious and political leaders. I strongly endorse the European Parliament resolution of 18 January 2006 that lesbian and gay people should be protected from homophobic hate speech and violence and treated with 'respect, dignity and protection.'"

Wow! We need more people like this in decision-making positions.

Born Different

This new website is dedicated to spreading the message among the general public that being different is ok; that there's nothing wrong with it; that just because you're different, you're not a threat to society, your neighbor, or anyone else's livelihood.

The website very effectively uses an adorable, heart-melting puppy, Norman, to present the issue in a smart and cool way. Norman looks like his brothers and sisters and seems perfectly "normal," until...

Well, click on the "norman on tv" link to check out these great short videos.

The message here is clear and simple, Norman isn't responsible for how or who he is. He was born that way. Is it right or fair to discriminate against him?

The site also offers links to solid scientific research that both answer our staunchest critics and debunk myths about homosexuality.

Check it out, it's very good.

Study shows homosexuality's genetic origin

A new study has provided credible evidence that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice, adding further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin color:

A man's sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.

Previous research had revealed the more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay, but the reason for this phenomenon was unknown.

But a Canadian study has shown that the effect is most likely due to biological rather than social factors.
[...]
He found the link between the number of older brothers and homosexuality only existed when the siblings shared the same mother.

The amount of time the individual spent being raised with older brothers did not affect their sexual orientation.
[...]
Writing in the journal, Professor Bogaert said: "If rearing or social factors associated with older male siblings underlies the fraternal birth-order effect [the link between the number of older brothers and male homosexuality], then the number of non-biological older brothers should predict men's sexual orientation, but they do not.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."

He suggests the effect is probably the result of a "maternal memory" in the womb for male births.

A woman's body may see a male foetus as "foreign", he says, prompting an immune reaction which may grow progressively stronger with each male child.

The antibodies created may affect the developing male brain.

In an accompanying article, scientists from Michigan State University said: "These data strengthen the notion that the common denominator between biological brothers, the mother, provides a prenatal environment that fosters homosexuality in her younger sons."

Let's see what arguments the gay-haters will come up with now to refute this study's results.

"Homosexuals are not terrorists"

The following comment, by Oscar Wilde's grandson Merlin Holland, should be thrown in the face of any righteous prick who considers gays a danger to society:

"Homosexuals are not terrorists; they are not murderers; they are not fanatics who take hostages to achieve their goals. They are simply human beings who are asking that their rights to normal lives be recognized. It is nothing of which to be ashamed; it is not decadent and depraved; it is a part of human nature and has been since the dawn of civilization... My grandfather was imprisoned in 1895 simply for being a homosexual and our family was almost destroyed as a result."