|
Post by Kacer on Feb 18, 2005 17:37:40 GMT -5
I don't think it would work for nightclubs and restraunts HERE (Ohio) why? well, the BUSINESS might "welcome" us, however, the LAW says that's a "no-no" :/ (If they serve alcohol OTHER than beer). But I like the idea Better, IMO, however, to approach them AFTER the next Pride Parade. (Here, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 24, 2005 14:13:47 GMT -5
www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005033148,00.html Pop star Andy Bell of erasure says he always WANTED to be HIV positive. Unbelievable. Nut jobs are born daily... I mean look at the anti's (both anti-gun and anti-glbt ) ! Seems to me that QAF had an ep or two on this bizzarre deal w/an artist "needing" to suffer to be great.... IMO, there are MUCH better ways... what a loon.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 16, 2005 20:39:58 GMT -5
New Poll shows Majority of Canadians support same-sex marriage More HereCanadians are still supporting same-sex marriage according to an extensive National poll conducted by Environics. More than half (54%) of Canadians believe that Parliament should pass such a law, while 43 percent believe it should not. by Rick Barnes
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Feb 8, 2005 18:54:28 GMT -5
Further signs of psychosis:Flintstones Are ‘Way Too Gay’ Fred and Barney should be banned because they are virtually inseparable, are never seen wearing pants and live together in the suggestively-named town of Bedrock, complains a conservative activist By Andy Borowitz Newsweek Updated: 12:51 p.m. ET Feb. 8, 2005 Feb. 8 - The ongoing campaign against alleged gay icons in animated cartoons continued today as a newly formed conservative group demanded that television stations stop broadcasting "The Flintstones" at once. Harland Devane, leader of the group Focus on the Flintstones, said at a press conference in Washington, D.C. today that his organization was issuing the demand because, "Quite simply, everything about 'The Flintstones' is way too gay." The conservative activist distributed a memo itemizing over 50 ways in which the self-styled "modern Stone Age family" series promotes homosexuality, but left little doubt that most of his concerns centered on the relationship between the two main characters, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble. More
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 22, 2005 20:13:43 GMT -5
I like that Thanks for posting it. Also, I'd like to get the "Radical Religious Ridicules Right " OUT there ... hopefully it will become as popular as the RRR (Radical Religious Right) - and just as appropo, IMO, so PLEASE feel free anyone to use it w/impunity Also, IMO that's helping to seperate the "kooks" from the real Christians, who may or may NOT have issues w/us - but who, while they may be WRONG, aren't NUTS.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 21, 2005 22:50:35 GMT -5
The Radical Religious Ridicules Right has LOST it. Will Spongebob make you gay?Two conservative Christian groups are attacking the cartoon character for allegedly being part of a "pro-homosexual video" First it was the spate of the SpongeBob rob jobs from local Burger Kings. Now the little yellow guy who lives in a pineapple under the sea is at the center of a far grimmer controversy, again not of his own making. Two conservative Christian groups attacking the cartoon character for allegedly being part of, as one of them put it, a "pro-homosexual video." A man named Dr. James Dobson, founder of a conservative Christian group called "Focus on the Family" addressed members of Congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating the president's election victory this week. He advised the group that SpongeBob had been included in a pro-homosexual video which was to be mailed to thousands of elementary schools to push a tolerance pledge by kids, including tolerance of differences of what Dr. Dobson called "sexual identity." Dr. Dobson said most of the favorite cartoons of America's kids were in on the plot, Barney and Jimmy Neutron included. More here, including link to watch the video the Christian groups are referring to.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 23:32:52 GMT -5
IMO, VERY well done story. Red state bar mitzvahBy Bruce Vilanch From The Advocate, January 17, 2005 The only bright spot on election night was noticing that the Queer Eye guys had apparently infiltrated the network news divisions. Everywhere you looked, there was a sea of red and a depressingly smaller sea of blue. NBC even commandeered the ice rink at Rockefeller Center and turned it into a gigantic red and blue map, which served as a doormat for the shafts of red and blue light climbing up the side of the General Electric building as the competition stiffened. Back in the day, as people under 20 are fond of saying (I keep thinking they’re referring to last Tuesday, and often they are), the networks relied on a baffling array of charts and graphs done up by T-square nerds in the research department. We’re much more sophisticated now. more: www.advocate.com/html/stories/930/930_vilanch.asp
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on May 19, 2005 19:53:15 GMT -5
So which Simpson did it turn out to be? Patty... not "technically" a "Simpson", she is a "Bouvier" (sp?) But that's who it turned out to be.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 16, 2005 19:47:28 GMT -5
Given her personality, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Lisa but she's too young to realistically come out yet. If I had to say, I'd guess Skinner. Come on, he's how old and still a momma's boy? Or Grandpa- he's president of a "Gay and Lesbian Association" (Stonecutter's Episode) and, in one episode, he admitted to having worn dresses during a period in the '40s. Hm... guess we'll just have to wait and see. Guess so, I missed the ep you referenced w/relation to Grandpa. But I only watch it every so often when NOTHING else is on... which isn't often w/around 150 channels... plus DVDs
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 12, 2005 8:10:24 GMT -5
I love playing these games. Wayne Yeah, mee too. if it's an actual "Simpson" I'm still sticking w/Lisa... I mean there's the "into the future" ep where she ALMOST gets married (to a guy) but DOES NOT, there's the ep where she's reading: "Non-Threatening Boys"... she's intelligent, I just think she's the most likely SIMPSON, but if it's a "Simpson's CHARACTER" that's a whole `nother story And no real limits... could be just about ANYONE.
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 10, 2005 10:59:15 GMT -5
Okay.... Personally, I'd figure Lisa... I've thought this since very early in the cartoon's history... here's what "The Times Of India has to say on the subject: WASHINGTON: An Internet gambling company has begun taking bets on about which character on "The Simpsons" will come out as gay. According to Zap2it , BetUS.com is laying 4 to 5 odds on Patty, with Smithers next at 4 to 1. Bart's friend Milhouse is the No 3 favorite, followed by Selma and Homer's fellow nuclear technician, Lenny. more: timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/985035.cmsThought this was good for being a bit stoopid/silly
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Feb 5, 2005 16:28:44 GMT -5
N.Y. judge lifts ban on gay nuptialsBy Samuel Maull Associated Press Published February 5, 2005 NEW YORK -- A state judge ruled Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a decision that could clear the way for gay couples to wed in New York. State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely because the two people are of the same sex. She then stayed her 62-page decision for 30 days to allow an appeal. Gay-rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that "delivers the state constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers." "The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal lawyer who handled the case for five couples who filed the lawsuit in 2004. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do," she added. The New York City Law Department issued a statement saying, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options." More
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 22:23:01 GMT -5
Unforantly they [bashers] just stop calling people f*g while beating/killing [like the film producer in LA] OR recant like the two scumbag who killed Shepard and beat the hate crime rap. Better to just double tap them in the act. Again, I agree. I'm a FIRM believer in the "double tap". And yeah. IMO BOTH the Matt S. MURDERERS should have just gotten "ye ole doubletap". But alas, M.S. was (apparently) not "into" firearms ... otherwise the bigots could be vilifyinng him in a DIFFERENT way... at least he'd likely be alive
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 21:50:33 GMT -5
The problem I have with hate crime laws is they rely on the idea of "Thought police." In other words, unless the perp utters something in the commission of said crime to indicate the reason. And I was the victim of a "hate crime" many years ago. I just have a problem with laws that have to determine whether someone was killed/beaten because of their skin color,sexual preference,religion, or country of origin. As it is, I think that laws against assault should be the same in any case. I also think that in general, perhaps the penalties should be stiffer across the board to discourage such action, regardless who the victim is. But that's just my opinion. I'm with you on the "stiffer penalties" Al. And who has to read minds? IF the laws are written properly, it should be just like ANY other crime. PROOF = CONVICTION, NO PROOF = Goes FREE (at least on THAT count). "Gee, the victim was gay... but s/he wasn't leaving a GLBT establishment, doesn't "look gay" (whatever THAT means ), the offender didn't say, "DIE [expletuive]!" or anything similar that would INDICATE they KNEW the victim was gay, didn't know the victim.... guess we can nail them on THAT." OTOH. "Gee, the victim was gay, leaving a VERY publicly known Gay Bar, is a "flamer" and the offender yelled (repeatedly) "Die [expletive meaning gay man]! DIE!!, heard by 2 witnesses as they rushed to assist the likely victim." NAILED add 2-10 years. DONE, NO Q!
|
|
|
Post by Kacer on Jan 1, 2005 20:02:04 GMT -5
Who here supports or thinks that hate crime laws are going to really help the LGBT be safer? IMO hate crime laws are not going to do anything to make us any safer. And will actually make the problem worse, by giving everybody that false sense of security. Ref the Don't ask Don't tell bs which has now gotten more queers thrown out of the military then ever before. This is where _I_ tend to be at odds w both l(L)ibertarian friends as well as more tha a few "gun folk" (Who, granted TEND to be more "conservative", generally speaking - by-in-large. Do I think ANY law will EVER "protect" ANYONE - heck NO! However, I _DO_ think that "mugging someone" because they were "handy" at the time isn't QUITE as bad as "mugging someone because they are: gay/black/white/disabled/Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Hindu ++++ whatever". ASSUMING we can "prove" THAT is the MAIN "push" for doing the crime in the first place (which is likely ONLY "proveable" when talking about REALLY, REALLY stoopid [sic] (confess that's why - IE Matt Shepard murderers) criminals, OR "serial criminals" who through DNA/Eyewitness/confession whatever... have ONLY robbed/bashed/raped/whatever, "X-group". JMO, OMMV.
|
|