GNN (Gossip \’N\’ News)

Real world and entertainment news

  • Site Views

    • 45,233 hits
  • RSS Feed

     Subscribe in a reader This is compatible with any feed reader.

  • Email Updates

    Click HERE to subscribe!

  • June 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Archived News

  • Blogroll.net Webring
    Join | Ring Hub | Random | Prev | Next

    Dirt 100

Posts Tagged ‘homosexuality’

Discrimination and Civil Rights v. 2.0.08

Posted by gnn1 on Saturday, 8 November 2008

Well… votes are still being counted thanks to provisional and absentee ballots in California, but it looks as though prop 8 passed.  In addition to California, Arizona and Florida also voted to ban gay marriage, and Arkansas voted to ban same sex couples from adopting or fostering kids (because, yunno, there are so FEW kids in the system that we can afford to limit the number of homes like that…)

Gays are the 21st century answer to blacks, apparently, because just 40 or 50 years ago, interracial marriages were being banned like this (never by vote though).

When did legal discrimination become okay again?  WHY did it become okay again?!  Whether you believe gays were born ‘that way’ or choose it, love is LOVE.  Why does it matter WHO you love?

I have never been so disappointed and disgusted as I was reading the ballot measure results on CNN.

To all of you who voted to ban gay marriage, shame on you.  Civil unions do NOT (as you may mistakenly believe) provide the same benefits of marriage.

If a straight person gets married, in any state in the union, and moves to another state, the other state MUST recognise their marriage.  If a gay person has a civil union, it’s not valid in the new state.

Once you (straight person) get married, you are eligible for over ONE THOUSAND federal ‘benefits and protections’ (and several hundred more at the state level) including:

  1. Joint parental rights of children
  2. Joint adoption
  3. Status as “next-of-kin” for hospital visits and medical decisions
  4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
  5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
  6. Crime victims recovery benefits
  7. Domestic violence protection orders
  8. Judicial protections and immunity
  9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
  10. Public safety officers death benefits
  11. Spousal veterans benefits
  12. Social Security
  13. Medicare
  14. Joint filing of tax returns
  15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
  16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
  17. Child support
  18. Joint Insurance Plans
  19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
  20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
  21. Estate and gift tax benefits
  22. Welfare and public assistance
  23. Joint housing for elderly
  24. Credit protection
  25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

While SOME of these benefits can be set up privately, legally, through lawyers (at RIDICULOUS cost) or are offered through companies privately, most cannot/are not.

To those who believe homosexuality is a choice I ask you: were you born straight or did you chose?  Could you CHOOSE to be gay “if you wanted?”  Or does the thought disugust you (and not for so-called moral reasons).  If you cannot HONESTLY answer that you would CHOOSE to be gay, then you have refuted your OWN argument.

And finally, why would someone CHOOSE to be gay, knowing they will have an uphill battle, be discriminated against (even legally), harrassed, insulted, and possibly even assaulted or killed (think that doesn’t happen?  It does–Matthew Shepard wasn’t all THAT long ago, and we haven’t come THAT far in gays’ rights).

Sources:
Civil Union v Gay Marriage
What are the Legal Benefits of Marriage?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

They have some effin balls!

Posted by gnn1 on Thursday, 20 September 2007

Found this in odd news:

CANBERRA (Reuters) – A lesbian couple in Australia are suing their doctor after they had twin girls from an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure when they only wanted one child.The two women are seeking more than $400,000 (Australian dollars) (171,941 Great Britain Pounds; $322,893 US Dollars) in damages to help pay for the cost of raising the second child, including private school fees, saying they made it clear to their doctor that they only wanted one baby.

The twins are now three years old and the civil case, the first of its kind in Australia, has prompted debate about the value of children and role of parents.

“The litigation involving twins already three years old undermines the importance of parenthood,” conservative government Senator Guy Barnett said on Thursday.

“We seem more intent on preserving and pandering to the wishes of adults, than we are in protecting the rights of children,” he said.

Barnett called for banning same-sex couples and unmarried women from access to publicly-funded IVF services, sparking a new moral debate ahead of national elections, due at any time.

The case is being heard in Canberra, where letters published in the local Canberra Times newspaper overwhelmingly criticised the legal action after the birth of two healthy children.

“The child’s identity is subsumed to the whim of the mother who has bought the sperm and paid the IVF clinic,” columnist Angela Shanahan wrote in The Australian newspaper.

“Ultimately the result is the child as product, robbed of its unique identity.”

The court has ordered a gag on the identity of the women, who used donor sperm from a Danish doctor for the IVF treatment in 2003 which resulted in the birth of twin girls.

The court has heard that they signed a consent form to allow two embryos to be implanted, but specifically told their specialist they only wanted one embryo implanted.

The court was told the birth of the twins had created considerable stress within the couples’ relationship, but lawyers for the doctor said that almost every couple who had a child went through similar strain.

It takes a lot of nerve to sue your doctor for having twins.  And I am sure they were told and ignored that the doctor couldn’t guarantee a single birth.

And why the fuck should they can sue for PRIVATE SCHOOL fees?!  This is just fucked up all over.

Source: Yahoo! News

Posted in baby news, lawsuits, Legal, rude much?, wtf? | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Andy Dick likes the young guys…and water sports

Posted by gnn1 on Sunday, 26 August 2007

Perez Hilton’s readers are quick on the draw-with camera phones!  Thanks to them there are a ton of pics of Andy Dick making out with college aged guys at a club in Columbus Ohio called Axis.

He also seems to like water sports (and no, I’m not talking about water skiing).  A reader claims to have been solicited by the Dick-man whilst in the bathroom and Andy tried to pee on him (ewww-ness!).  The guy says Andy was beyond wasted.

He was beyond drunk. He seemed cracked out as fuck. And for the record, AndyDick’s ‘dick’ is not that impressive.” [I don’t know if Perez or the reader bolded that line, but it was already bolded when I got it].

Another reader informed Perez that Andy did manage to get lucky that night, in the club’s bathroom (ewww-ness again).

Several readers claim that Andy tried to cop some cocaine from them.

By the end of the night he was beyond gone and had to be carried out of the club.

Talk about (almost) walking trainwrecks!

Tons of pics over at Perez’s page if you wanna check them out.  Totally worth it, but skip them if you’ve recently eaten.

Source (and pics): Perez Hilton

Posted in trainwrecks | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Mel B bi?

Posted by gnn1 on Sunday, 26 August 2007

The Daily Mail ran an article today that Scary Spice aka Mel B had a two year lesbian affair.  Christa Parker alleges that she and Elizabeth Rodriguez had a lesbian affair with the singer after Christa met Mel at an American school their children attended.

Christa says

 “I had only had sex with a woman once before…but Mel was obviously very experienced with women. She is a great kisser.”

She goes on to say that the three began a regular sexual relationship seeing each other nearly every day and tumbling into bed several times a week.   Mel supposedly was also dating men at the same time.  The affair was ended when Mel’s torrid romance with her Baby Daddy, Eddie Murphy began in May 2006.


Scary shares a same sex smooch

Source: Daily Mail

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Canadian MP has same sex wedding

Posted by gnn1 on Tuesday, 21 August 2007

Congrats to Scott Brison and his husband!  Scott, a member of Parliament in Canada wed his partner this weekend.  He is the first member of Parliament to do so.

Gay marriage was legalised two years ago in Canada (I think we need to get with the times in the US).

Source: Perez Hilton

Posted in engagements and weddings | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

A follow up to the church cancelling a gay vet’s memorial svc.

Posted by gnn1 on Monday, 13 August 2007

The man’s partner wrote this response:

Perhaps this post from Paul Wagner will provide details that were not available and/or not included in the AP article. Oringinally posted at
http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=3327

Paul Wagner on Aug 11th, 2007 at 5:40 am
I am the partner of Cecil Sinclair who passed. It is unfortunate that the church has decided to tell untruths in order to make themselves feel better, or make their side of the story into a saner response. Hopefully more of the truth will come out in future articles or investigations.

First of all, let me start by stating that it was a member of the church who offered the use of their facility to us, on behalf of his brother who is/was a member of their congregation. I was introduced to this man as Cecil’s partner. To my knowledge, this person at least was fully aware that we were living openly as a couple. This same member of the church, when were later advised that we could not use the facilities, on his own, with money from his own pocket, not church coffers, went and procured another facility for the funeral. The church did not do so. At no time did a member of the church contact us to indicate that they had a problem with any part of the service we were planning. We never had contact with the minister or any of the administration.

On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil’s sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done. These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos.

Cecil’s brother Lee, who was the member of the church, asked that we include a call to prayer near the beginning of the services, as well as a call for salvation at the end. We immediately agreed to this because it meant so much to his brother personally. We even asked if they wanted to have their own minister conduct it, or if our officiator could. There was no objection raised, so we assumed that it was OK.

On Wednesday evening about 6pm, we received a call. The person on the line put Cecil’s brother Lee, who is mentally impaired, onto the phone. Lee informed us that something was wrong, and then someone else got on the phone. That person informed us that a terrible string of errors was made, and that the service could no longer be held at their facility. We never spoke to the pastor nor anyone from his administration directly. It was all done through middlemen. When we requested to know why we could no longer use their facility, there was no answer. They simply stated a mistake was made.

Later that night, while we were scrambling to find another location, Cecil’s niece called back to the church and demanded an explanation. It was at that time a very long string of excuses began to form. First she was told that it was because we were bringing in outside food, which they didn’t allow. Then we were told it was because there was construction going on nearby which they felt would be too obtrusive. We said we didn’t think it would interfere. Then we were told it was because there was a scheduling conflict. When asked was other event was being held that was conflicting, the call was disconnected.

The remembrance we held for Cecil I felt was wonderful. We started with a brief welcome by the officiator. A song (For the Fallen) was sung. Cecil’s obituary was read. We then played the video which was about 10 minutes long, showing him from childhood, graduation, his naval service, and family gatherings, especially those from his 46th birthday, which had just been on the 5th of July. The officiator then read from personal family statements and remembrances of him. His mother, father, uncle and sister had all contributed personal insights into his life that they were not able to state themselves due to grief. A time was then allowed for individuals to come to the mike and offer their own personal remembrances of him. The chorale then sang another song (Amazing Grace). Closing remarks were made by the officiator and we then moved to the light meal that had been prepared. Meat and cheese sandwiches, cakes, and cookies. Only a small amount of this was offered by the church, most was either brought by family or friends.

To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn’t even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice. If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided. If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil’s remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

I loved Cecil truly and deeply, and I am sorry that anyone considers a truly heartfelt, emotional, even spiritual connection to another human being to be sinful, simply because that love is between two people of the same sex.

He is a gracious, classy man.

Source: Military.com discussion forum

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Church denies memorial service for gay vet

Posted by gnn1 on Sunday, 12 August 2007

A church in Arlington TX cancelled a memorial service for a gay veteran, one day before the service. The church contends they were not made aware of the fact that the deceased was gay. The family says they knew that he was.

Allegedly, the issue came to light as a photo tribute was being arranged by a church official who claims that included in the photos were pictures of men hugging and kissing. The family member who provided the pictures says not so.

She said she provided numerous family pictures of Sinclair, including some with his partner, but said none showed men kissing or hugging.

Church officials said the church offered to pay for another site for the service, made the video and provided food for more than 100 relatives and friends.

My response to this story is this:

How many memorial services have been held in that church for lazy people (sloth), greedy people, gluttonous people, jealous people (envy), prideful people, lustful people, or angry people (wrath)? Those are the seven deadly sins.

And how many times has a service been held for a divorced person, someone divorced not for a reason now sanctioned by Church, such as abuse, but for ‘irreconcilable differences’ per se…?

How many memorial services have been held for someone who was a never-married single parent, and the child was not the product of a crime? Or someone who was living in sin, ‘shacking up’ out of wedlock?

If this church holds a memorial service for ANYONE who has committed ANY of these sins (and face it, every one of us has committed at LEAST two or three of these!!) then they had NO RIGHT to refuse this service on the grounds of morality.

And I’m thinking it’s safe to say that not every sinner whose service was held at this church repented, by the way.

Take the related poll. (Sorry to make it a link, but for some reason, I can’t enter the poll here).

Source: Military.com

Edited 14 Aug- On followup reading, I learnt that the information regarding the church paying for another facility and for food is false.

Posted in articles with a poll, news, posts with a correction | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »