Gay News
"Gay News" bundle created by Mike Nova
Description: Gay Life and Culture News Review
A bundle is a collection of blogs and websites hand-selected by your friend on a particular topic or interest. You can keep up to date with them all in one place by subscribing in Google Reader.
There are
46 feeds included in this bundle
- gay wrestling - Google Blog Search
- New gay images on Photobucket
- Daily News
- Big Gay Picture Show
- Queerty
- Towleroad News #gay
- On Top Magazine Headlines
- Uploads by FullFrontalFreedom
- Uploads by TheVillageLTD
- YouTube Videos matching query: gay puerto rico
- YouTube Videos matching query: gay puerto rico news
- YouTube Videos matching query: puerto rico gay news
- Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida
- gay men puerto rico - Google News
- gay puerto rico - Google News
- gay rights puerto rico - Google News
- gay san juan puerto rico - Google News
- gay travel puerto rico - Google News
- News and Commentary | Out Magazine
- Yahoo! News: Gay & Lesbian Issues
- Gay/Lesbian News
- Soft and Hard Gay Pictures
- The Sublime Cock
- 365 Gay News
- Funny Junk Most Popular Contents
- Gay.com News Headlines
- Gay and Lesbian Times
- gay men puerto rico - Google Blog Search
- gay puerto rico - Google Blog Search
- gay rights puerto rico - Google Blog Search
- gay san juan puerto rico - Google Blog Search
- gay travel puerto rico - Google Blog Search
- Gay Voices
- Gauge at Metro Weekly (Newspaper Magazine of Gay and Lesbian Washington, DC)
- LGBT
- SFGate Features: Gay & Lesbian
- WickedGayBlog.com
- About Gay Life
- The Guardian's Facebook Wall
- Gay News - New York - Facebook Wall
- Gay News - New York - Links's Facebook Wall
- Gay Puerto Rico Links's Facebook Wall
- Gay TV's Facebook Wall
- Gay Puerto Rico's Facebook Wall
- The New York Times's Facebook Wall
- The Wall Street Journal's Facebook Wall
via Gay Voices by Ekene Agu on 3/5/13
This is the winning entry for the Student category of The Fetzer Institute -- Sustained Dialogue Empathy Essay Contest.
Of late, I have experienced a certain recurring sensation, one of dissonance, vulnerability and courage. I am not sure what it is but I think it might be empathy.
Calling me opinionated is an understatement. I can rarely resist an opportunity to engage. Easily 30 percent of my time in college has been spent in corners of dining halls and on futons in friends' rooms, talking about topics ranging from the merits of social choice funds to the evolutionary purpose of our discolored areolas.
One night I was engaged in such a dialogue with my roommate, who was no stranger to these encounters. We had gone from good nights to the interaction of hate-crime laws and racism in America. He asserted that people of color were stereotyped as more homophobic and thus more likely to commit hate crimes, and this image consequently served as yet another way to imprison us. I did not agree. The dialogue quickly became a debate. He and I are usually aligned but when we are not, he loves to qualify my points as "normatively" correct -- he likes to think he's the radical one. Nonetheless, I quoted statistics and made philosophically sound assumptions -- I even used his own assertions to problematize his initial claim; I was ostensibly winning. Then out of nowhere, I became acutely aware of his non-verbals -- his flared nostrils and tense muscles; there was just a general deflation of his being. These were clearly biological responses to feeling threatened. I began considering the implications of my position: "Is it important to be right, right now?" I asked myself.
This conversation was not about statistics or innovative argumentative strategies; it was about the lived experiences of some gay people of color, a group to which my friend belonged. I suddenly felt very open -- not only in the sense that I was more willing to accept his assertions; I became so aware of my insensitivity that I felt Adam-and-Eve naked. I, the economics concentrator, who constantly criticizes how much gets lost in correlations and betas, was using these unstable categories to invalidate somebody's lived experiences. I could not ignore this realization; I chose to remain exposed, steeping in this bizarre sensation of dissonance, vulnerability, and courage.
The image of walking in someone else's shoes is such a pervasive conception of empathy. I believe it has at once helped and hindered my understanding of these sensations. My experience that night showed me that you do not have to attempt walking to empathize -- just trying to fit into someone else's shoes can be quite jarring. There is a dissonance in realizing that you have different but valid claims and a vulnerability begging that you accept this truth. It does not demand pity but rather courage. I will never know what it means to be a gay man of color raised on La Frontera. What I can do is simply step my feet into his shoes by remembering personal encounters that have elicited similarly visceral reactions in me.
Of late, I have experienced a certain recurring sensation, one of dissonance, vulnerability and courage. I am not sure what it is but I think it might be empathy.
Calling me opinionated is an understatement. I can rarely resist an opportunity to engage. Easily 30 percent of my time in college has been spent in corners of dining halls and on futons in friends' rooms, talking about topics ranging from the merits of social choice funds to the evolutionary purpose of our discolored areolas.
One night I was engaged in such a dialogue with my roommate, who was no stranger to these encounters. We had gone from good nights to the interaction of hate-crime laws and racism in America. He asserted that people of color were stereotyped as more homophobic and thus more likely to commit hate crimes, and this image consequently served as yet another way to imprison us. I did not agree. The dialogue quickly became a debate. He and I are usually aligned but when we are not, he loves to qualify my points as "normatively" correct -- he likes to think he's the radical one. Nonetheless, I quoted statistics and made philosophically sound assumptions -- I even used his own assertions to problematize his initial claim; I was ostensibly winning. Then out of nowhere, I became acutely aware of his non-verbals -- his flared nostrils and tense muscles; there was just a general deflation of his being. These were clearly biological responses to feeling threatened. I began considering the implications of my position: "Is it important to be right, right now?" I asked myself.
This conversation was not about statistics or innovative argumentative strategies; it was about the lived experiences of some gay people of color, a group to which my friend belonged. I suddenly felt very open -- not only in the sense that I was more willing to accept his assertions; I became so aware of my insensitivity that I felt Adam-and-Eve naked. I, the economics concentrator, who constantly criticizes how much gets lost in correlations and betas, was using these unstable categories to invalidate somebody's lived experiences. I could not ignore this realization; I chose to remain exposed, steeping in this bizarre sensation of dissonance, vulnerability, and courage.
The image of walking in someone else's shoes is such a pervasive conception of empathy. I believe it has at once helped and hindered my understanding of these sensations. My experience that night showed me that you do not have to attempt walking to empathize -- just trying to fit into someone else's shoes can be quite jarring. There is a dissonance in realizing that you have different but valid claims and a vulnerability begging that you accept this truth. It does not demand pity but rather courage. I will never know what it means to be a gay man of color raised on La Frontera. What I can do is simply step my feet into his shoes by remembering personal encounters that have elicited similarly visceral reactions in me.
via Gay Voices by Joseph Ward III on 3/5/13
Just days before Pope Benedict became the first pontiff to resign in 600 years, his office was embroiled in yet another intrigue -- this time involving the discovery of an alleged gay underworld in the Vatican.
As reported in La Repubblica, an underground network of Vatican officials has allegedly been engaging in sexual acts at locations throughout Rome, including a sauna and beauty parlor. These gay (or closeted) clergy have supposedly been blackmailed by a group of male prostitutes.
The news wasn't too surprising to those who view the papacy's draconian approach to human sexuality as the source of so much secrecy and sexual abuse rampant throughout the culture of the priesthood. But the Vatican was quick to dismiss a claim that the pope decided to resign after allegedly hearing this news in a Dec. 17 dossier: "It is deplorable that as we draw closer to the time of the beginning of the conclave ... that there be a widespread distribution of often unverified, unverifiable or completely false news stories that cause serious damage to persons and institutions," said the Vatican's secretariat of state in an excerpt published in the Guardian.
But this response misses the point. The morality of the Roman Catholic cardinals, who will likely elect a new pope as early as next week, is what's really in question. Last week alone, Cardinal Keith O'Brein, the highest-ranking Catholic leader in Britain, resigned after allegations of inappropriate acts he committed toward male priests surfaced in the Observer newspaper.
What his resignation statement and the Catholic Church fail to recognize, however, is the growing public support for gay and transgender equality, and the opinion that it is morally OK for LGBT people to have healthy sexual lives and full equality in and outside of the church. The real moral quandary is scandal -- the lies and manipulation surrounding sexual abuse, and the contradictory public anti-gay stances of Cardinals compared to this underground behavior.
Cardinal O'Brein was slated to attend the conclave to decide on the next pope but said he would no longer do so amid the controversy.
While nobody (but the pope) has seen the 300-page dossier, we know it contains a window into the breadth of corruption within the Vatican. This internal investigation was prompted by the "Vatileaks" scandal last spring, and it discovered a host of corruption surrounding the breaking of two commandments in particular: "Thou shat not steal" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" -- respective references to financial mismanagement and homosexual relations by priests.
Concerns of financial mismanagement first surfaced through the hundreds of controversial documents that were leaked into the Italian media last year. These documents revealed corruption within the highest echelons of the Catholic Church, including Cardinal Tarciscio Bertone, the 78-year-old secretary of state. "Bertone's name recurs in letter after secret letter, as he plots to oust rivals as varied as the editor of the bishop's daily newspaper and the man sent in to clean up the Vatican's finances," reported The Daily Beast last July.
The man cleaning up the Vatican's finances was Archbishop Carol Maria Viganò, who, according to the New York Times, made enemies within the powerful administrative body of the Roman Catholic Church (the Curia) for identifying corruption. Against his wishes, he was removed from his post and sent to serve as an ambassador to the United States in Washington D.C. "I've never heard of a top cleric who reveals an episode of corruption directly to the pope; it's a first. And what happens? He is stopped from pursuing his objectives and gets sent away from the Holy See," said the host of the television program Gianluigi Nuzzi to the Times.
What all this boils down too is not only the egregious mismanagement of Vatican City, but also the antiquated leadership model within the Church and it's inability to foster a healthy system that can function within the modern world. The Vatican creates unnecessary pressure by placing itself into a sexual closet; healthier conversations on human sexuality issues would improve the lives of both leaders and members of the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict cited his failing health -- a lack of strength of body and mind specifically -- as the reasons he is unable to appropriately fulfill the ministry that was entrusted to him. The next pope, said to be elected before Holy Week at the end of the month, will be handed the 300-page report detailing corruption issues, including information about this alleged gay Vatican underworld.
It is unlikely that the leaders of the Catholic Church will modernize their approach anytime soon; however, this document signals the need for an internal reformation around sexuality, including issues of LGBT equality.
Almost 6-in-10 American Catholics support LGBT rights because lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are a part of their daily lives.
Will Catholic leaders come out of the closet (or underground sauna) and talk about human sexuality and sexual conduct in ways that create a healthier church culture? Or will they continue to ignore these issues and further alienate the LGBT-loving Christians in their pews?
As reported in La Repubblica, an underground network of Vatican officials has allegedly been engaging in sexual acts at locations throughout Rome, including a sauna and beauty parlor. These gay (or closeted) clergy have supposedly been blackmailed by a group of male prostitutes.
The news wasn't too surprising to those who view the papacy's draconian approach to human sexuality as the source of so much secrecy and sexual abuse rampant throughout the culture of the priesthood. But the Vatican was quick to dismiss a claim that the pope decided to resign after allegedly hearing this news in a Dec. 17 dossier: "It is deplorable that as we draw closer to the time of the beginning of the conclave ... that there be a widespread distribution of often unverified, unverifiable or completely false news stories that cause serious damage to persons and institutions," said the Vatican's secretariat of state in an excerpt published in the Guardian.
But this response misses the point. The morality of the Roman Catholic cardinals, who will likely elect a new pope as early as next week, is what's really in question. Last week alone, Cardinal Keith O'Brein, the highest-ranking Catholic leader in Britain, resigned after allegations of inappropriate acts he committed toward male priests surfaced in the Observer newspaper.
What his resignation statement and the Catholic Church fail to recognize, however, is the growing public support for gay and transgender equality, and the opinion that it is morally OK for LGBT people to have healthy sexual lives and full equality in and outside of the church. The real moral quandary is scandal -- the lies and manipulation surrounding sexual abuse, and the contradictory public anti-gay stances of Cardinals compared to this underground behavior.
Cardinal O'Brein was slated to attend the conclave to decide on the next pope but said he would no longer do so amid the controversy.
While nobody (but the pope) has seen the 300-page dossier, we know it contains a window into the breadth of corruption within the Vatican. This internal investigation was prompted by the "Vatileaks" scandal last spring, and it discovered a host of corruption surrounding the breaking of two commandments in particular: "Thou shat not steal" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" -- respective references to financial mismanagement and homosexual relations by priests.
Concerns of financial mismanagement first surfaced through the hundreds of controversial documents that were leaked into the Italian media last year. These documents revealed corruption within the highest echelons of the Catholic Church, including Cardinal Tarciscio Bertone, the 78-year-old secretary of state. "Bertone's name recurs in letter after secret letter, as he plots to oust rivals as varied as the editor of the bishop's daily newspaper and the man sent in to clean up the Vatican's finances," reported The Daily Beast last July.
The man cleaning up the Vatican's finances was Archbishop Carol Maria Viganò, who, according to the New York Times, made enemies within the powerful administrative body of the Roman Catholic Church (the Curia) for identifying corruption. Against his wishes, he was removed from his post and sent to serve as an ambassador to the United States in Washington D.C. "I've never heard of a top cleric who reveals an episode of corruption directly to the pope; it's a first. And what happens? He is stopped from pursuing his objectives and gets sent away from the Holy See," said the host of the television program Gianluigi Nuzzi to the Times.
What all this boils down too is not only the egregious mismanagement of Vatican City, but also the antiquated leadership model within the Church and it's inability to foster a healthy system that can function within the modern world. The Vatican creates unnecessary pressure by placing itself into a sexual closet; healthier conversations on human sexuality issues would improve the lives of both leaders and members of the Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict cited his failing health -- a lack of strength of body and mind specifically -- as the reasons he is unable to appropriately fulfill the ministry that was entrusted to him. The next pope, said to be elected before Holy Week at the end of the month, will be handed the 300-page report detailing corruption issues, including information about this alleged gay Vatican underworld.
It is unlikely that the leaders of the Catholic Church will modernize their approach anytime soon; however, this document signals the need for an internal reformation around sexuality, including issues of LGBT equality.
Almost 6-in-10 American Catholics support LGBT rights because lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are a part of their daily lives.
Will Catholic leaders come out of the closet (or underground sauna) and talk about human sexuality and sexual conduct in ways that create a healthier church culture? Or will they continue to ignore these issues and further alienate the LGBT-loving Christians in their pews?
via Gay Voices by Mia Norton on 3/5/13
I welcomed the new year with open arms. 2013 promises great things for my life and my family, one of them being that I am finally living a life with clarity, understanding and true compassion. I experienced firsthand the fact that inquiry invites advocacy and knowledge is power. I had grown and progressed in my journey, though there had been one huge, gaping chasm that I had been ignoring: my mother. Along with a host of other topics, this was certainly one that I knew without a shadow of a doubt that she and I would not see eye-to-eye on. At some point I will address my relationship with my mother at greater length, but for now, for brevity's sake, I will focus solely on our inevitable clash over my LGBT advocacy.
Aside from remarks here and there over the last several years, I had never directly taken up this issue with my mother. I had never had the provocation to do so until just last month, when a gay relative contacted my sibling to share that my mother had written him with a heavy-handed dose of spiritual advice. This created a festering wound amongst my siblings and me as we mulled over it and discussed in horror the fact that our mother would do such a thing. Until this point she had never been so direct and outspoken on this issue. She handled controversial and uncomfortable discussions relating to "sins of a sexual nature" not by direct conversation but with gradual influence of attitude and tone showing her obvious disapproval. I remember riding in the car with my family during their visit to California in 2009. We yielded for a lesbian couple, who crossed the street arm-in-arm as my mother clutched her Bible and muttered verses like incantations that would protect us from the influence of the evil that was being displayed so unapologetically.
After weeks of agonizing over how to respond to my mother, sometimes questioning whether I even should, I decided that I would write her a letter. This would be my official coming out as a straight ally. I sat down and watched For the Bible Tells Me So once again before I started writing. This time I tried to watch it with her perspective in mind. I tried to empathize with her view and make some sense of her belief. One would think that it would not be such a challenge to understand where she is coming from, given that this is where I spent nearly 30 years of my life as well, but I wanted to be sure that I was sitting down to write her with an attitude of compassion and a desire to open up productive dialogue. I did not want to shut her down within the first paragraph. So I wrote and rewrote. I proofread. And finally I was prepared to send it. I ordered a copy of the film, doubting that she would be willing to watch it but hoping that there would be some small chance that she would let down her guard long enough to hear me out. Besides, if I didn't give her a chance, then I could very well be underestimating and limiting her propensity for change.
From what I am told, she received her letter just a few short days later. She refused to read it. Instead, she burned it, an outward expression of her hostility and anger at the thought of even considering another's view. We have not had one conversation since that day. She left me a very forced, formal voicemail barely even acknowledging that I had written. She has declined to return any of my calls since. I am experiencing utter disappointment mixed with hurt and laden with disgust that after a decade of sending me handwritten letters of condemnation and chastisement, she would not even give me the courtesy of entertaining my carefully prepared letter to her.
This has not been an easy time for her, as she has had to deal not only with my attempt to reason with her but with heavy-hearted conversations from my siblings as well. I know that she is reeling, most likely feeling like she has failed as a parent. Right now she is being faced with outward expressions from her children that contradict every effort she made to train us up in the likeness of God. I am not angry at her. I do feel sorry for her, but the act of burning my letter pains me and makes me wonder whether there will ever be an honest, productive dialogue between us.
Over the past weeks I have been feeling such emotion over this strain in our family. I know how many times I have found it helpful to read other people's coming-out letters to their parents, whether they come out as gay or as straight allies, so I have decided that if my mother refuses to engage in a respectful discussion, if she is chooses not to hear the pleadings of her children, perhaps someone else's mother will. Maybe I will find solace in sharing my letter to my mother with others who are embarking on similar journeys. So, without further ado, I share with you my greatest stand as a straight ally:
No freedom till we're equal. Damn right I support it!
A version of this blog post originally appeared on Mia Norton's personal blog, Multifarious Mama. It was the last of three blog posts about coming out as a straight ally. Part 1 can be found here, and Part 2 here.
For more information on PFLAG, click here.
Aside from remarks here and there over the last several years, I had never directly taken up this issue with my mother. I had never had the provocation to do so until just last month, when a gay relative contacted my sibling to share that my mother had written him with a heavy-handed dose of spiritual advice. This created a festering wound amongst my siblings and me as we mulled over it and discussed in horror the fact that our mother would do such a thing. Until this point she had never been so direct and outspoken on this issue. She handled controversial and uncomfortable discussions relating to "sins of a sexual nature" not by direct conversation but with gradual influence of attitude and tone showing her obvious disapproval. I remember riding in the car with my family during their visit to California in 2009. We yielded for a lesbian couple, who crossed the street arm-in-arm as my mother clutched her Bible and muttered verses like incantations that would protect us from the influence of the evil that was being displayed so unapologetically.
After weeks of agonizing over how to respond to my mother, sometimes questioning whether I even should, I decided that I would write her a letter. This would be my official coming out as a straight ally. I sat down and watched For the Bible Tells Me So once again before I started writing. This time I tried to watch it with her perspective in mind. I tried to empathize with her view and make some sense of her belief. One would think that it would not be such a challenge to understand where she is coming from, given that this is where I spent nearly 30 years of my life as well, but I wanted to be sure that I was sitting down to write her with an attitude of compassion and a desire to open up productive dialogue. I did not want to shut her down within the first paragraph. So I wrote and rewrote. I proofread. And finally I was prepared to send it. I ordered a copy of the film, doubting that she would be willing to watch it but hoping that there would be some small chance that she would let down her guard long enough to hear me out. Besides, if I didn't give her a chance, then I could very well be underestimating and limiting her propensity for change.
From what I am told, she received her letter just a few short days later. She refused to read it. Instead, she burned it, an outward expression of her hostility and anger at the thought of even considering another's view. We have not had one conversation since that day. She left me a very forced, formal voicemail barely even acknowledging that I had written. She has declined to return any of my calls since. I am experiencing utter disappointment mixed with hurt and laden with disgust that after a decade of sending me handwritten letters of condemnation and chastisement, she would not even give me the courtesy of entertaining my carefully prepared letter to her.
This has not been an easy time for her, as she has had to deal not only with my attempt to reason with her but with heavy-hearted conversations from my siblings as well. I know that she is reeling, most likely feeling like she has failed as a parent. Right now she is being faced with outward expressions from her children that contradict every effort she made to train us up in the likeness of God. I am not angry at her. I do feel sorry for her, but the act of burning my letter pains me and makes me wonder whether there will ever be an honest, productive dialogue between us.
Over the past weeks I have been feeling such emotion over this strain in our family. I know how many times I have found it helpful to read other people's coming-out letters to their parents, whether they come out as gay or as straight allies, so I have decided that if my mother refuses to engage in a respectful discussion, if she is chooses not to hear the pleadings of her children, perhaps someone else's mother will. Maybe I will find solace in sharing my letter to my mother with others who are embarking on similar journeys. So, without further ado, I share with you my greatest stand as a straight ally:
To my beloved mother:I don't know what the future holds for my relationship with my mother or even my extended family. I am aware that at this time, I have more family members who would rather that I just stay silent than family members who understand my activism and my desire to advocate for change and equality. Because this subject has grown deeply personal to my family, it has become something that is testing the bounds of our relationships, challenging the ideas of unconditional love and, in some cases, shining a light on people's unwillingness and inability to consider other ideas and be open to change. However, I can say that in spite of the pressure to conform, and in the the face of isolation, I have reached a point in my life where I am standing confidently on my own feet, unapologetically and tirelessly ready to be a voice for reason and change. It has been a long and personal journey, but I have a peace and a purpose now that I have never known before, and I am proud to be a straight ally.
I have spent the last two weeks with knots in my stomach, trying to decide how to communicate my heartache and upset with you. Without beating around the bush, I keep in contact with [our cousins], and we have been in communication about the letter you sent them over the holidays. When I first read the words on my screen, I felt a deep shock of pain shoot through me. I had to sit and read and reread the words that were written by you. I felt angry, shocked and disappointed. "God does not let those who turn against the way he created them into the kingdom of heaven..."
I have spent the last several weeks really considering my reaction to this and trying to decide what course of action I would take. I haven't called or been in communication, as I haven't really known what I wanted to say. So after much thought and unrest I decided that I should write this letter.
Your words were deeply, deeply hurtful. Not just to [our cousins] but also to the family that supports them and even the extended family that shares a similar experience and like-mindedness. I have spent the last several years putting an incredible amount of time and research into this subject, and I cannot stand by silently when I see someone being persecuted for who they are, who they were born to be or even (dare I say?) who they were created to be. I understand every argument you may pose on this topic. I know them well, you see, because I am my mother's daughter. I was raised under very diligent instruction. So when this topic of homosexuality became personal to me, close and within my inner circle, I had to take a step back and look at it from a neutral perspective. I knew the arguments of the fundamentalists and the evangelical churches; what I didn't know was the other side. I was very familiar with Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22, the passages in Genesis 18 and 19 about Sodom and Gomorrah and even Romans 1:26. What I did not know was what explanation the rest of the population had on this subject.
So I set out to find answers. Are we born straight or gay? Is it a choice? Are gay people perverted sexual deviants? Does reparative therapy have any grounds? Can a gay person be a Christian? Please understand that my intention with this letter is not to sway your views, nor to argue my perspective, nor even to change your belief. Such a motive would be a waste of both of our time. Instead I am writing to tell you how I feel. I am writing to open up lines of communication in hopes of a better understanding of one another and, in turn, a deeper relationship that is based on honesty and fostered in love.
This past September you and I had what I feel was the most honest discussion we have ever had in my life. I was able to articulate to you my feelings and perspectives with a boldness that I had never expressed before. Did it hurt to hear it and hurt to have to say it? Sure, but I had come to an impasse. I could choose to accept a surface-level, formal relationship, or I could speak up in hopes of propelling our relationship forward, onto an even playing field where we could strive toward a mutual respect of one another's differences and just love one another. As I said then, isn't the fact that we love each other enough to sustain a relationship? Even if we cant agree on politics, religion or even some parenting strategies, you are my mother, and that is reason enough for me to invest myself into having a good relationship that is built on love.
I have come to a 180-degree change in my views on homosexuality. I joined [my local] PFLAG chapter seeking support and wanting to gain more understanding. I have felt such heartache knowing how many gay people are mistreated, even persecuted, for simply being who they are. It literally makes me ill to see precious, wonderful people being singled out and treated with such contempt. I have asked myself time and time again, "Can't people see the damage and pain they are causing with their words? Don't they see the long-lasting and far-reaching effects that their intolerance is causing in the lives of others?" At times I have found myself feeling angry, and I've even felt a strong disdain for conservatives who oppose my supportive view of people who are gay, until someone pointed out to me that my desire for tolerance had allowed me to become intolerant of anyone who held a different view than I did.
That was hard to digest. It's something I am still processing and striving to balance. I proudly consider myself an activist. I am a straight ally for the gay movement, and I am very focused on equality. The gay movement is indeed the civil rights movement of our era. But still, I would be hypocritical in wearing my "NO HATE" T-shirt if I were harboring contempt against those who are not supportive of the cause. This is still a growing process for me, because words of intolerance and hatred, and even well-intended words from my mother, evoke a strong reaction from me. I feel protective of those I love, and I feel such deep sympathy for those who suffer under the conditional love and dogmatism of those around them.
At the same time I am learning to feel empathy toward those who are unapologetic for projecting their views onto others while insisting that they have a God-given right to dispense unsolicited advice at the expense of another's happiness. Someplace behind my anger and defensiveness I can see a glimpse of myself, a glimpse of the person that I used to be, and my heart softens a bit. I can look on with a measure of compassion for others who so flippantly pass judgment and advice because I have stood in their shoes. This journey to understanding or even acceptance of something that is so foreign to the heterosexual fundamentalist mindset is deeply personal and completely individual. I had to come to terms with this in my own time, in my own way, so I must respect the journeys of others. You will not agree with anything I have said here; I know that that is an absolute. My intention is not to argue my views; I simply need to tell you how I feel. I am my mother's daughter, and I too need to speak about what burdens my heart, not with the intention of causing pain but because I believe in this idealistic relationship between us where love is the foundation.
It seems awkward to communicate so openly with you. There is something engrained in me that says that it's unnatural to speak against one's own mother. But just as I said in September and said again earlier in this letter, I would rather have a shot at a relationship that is genuine than suffer silently in a relationship that has no real sincerity or substance. I can't go forward harboring pain or being afraid to simply be myself or be allowed to live my life freely with my own views and goals. I don't want to be in a relationship that is conditional, where affection and love can be removed for the crime of individual thinking and free thought. In the same regard, I would never ask for something that I couldn't give in return. We should be mutually free to peruse our interests and live by our convictions without it diminishing the bond we share as mother and daughter.
So the intent of this letter is to simply express my perspective and attempt to call to your attention the hurt that has been inflicted by your letter. I know in my heart that you truly, truly intended only good with your penned words, but they have had the opposite effect of driving a wedge between that branch of our extended family and our portion of family members who will unknowingly wonder why [they] no longer feel comfortable returning. I am not sure what kind of restitution could be offered to them, but I have offered my sincere apologies for the injury that has been caused.
The only thing that I ask of you is that you be willing to spend 196 minutes of your time to watch the enclosed film, For the Bible Tells Me So. I say "196 minutes" because I am asking you to view it twice: once to feel your own emotions, feelings of disagreement or even repulsion, and once more to really listen to the stories of the families and hear the voices of those who are going through their own personal journeys. That is all I ask: Just watch the film. You don't have to change your mind. You don't have to explain or defend your views to me. Just be willing to hear the voices of others.
I love you so very much, and all I want in my future is to have a strong, happy and honest relationship with those who mean the most in my life. I read this quotation just today:
"It takes great courage to grow up and become who you really are."
--e.e. Cummings
This quotation is true to me. Standing up, speaking out, striving for authentic relationships, being myself and loving who I am -- these are my goals in life. Thank you for receiving my words, for giving my perspective consideration and for building an open and loving relationship with me.
I love you more than I can express.
No freedom till we're equal. Damn right I support it!
A version of this blog post originally appeared on Mia Norton's personal blog, Multifarious Mama. It was the last of three blog posts about coming out as a straight ally. Part 1 can be found here, and Part 2 here.
For more information on PFLAG, click here.
via Gay Voices by Deron Dalton on 3/5/13
Steel River is the latest urban gay series based on the down-low stereotype, but I thought I'd give it a chance. After a delay and an early sneak peak on YouTube, the Web series finally launched through signal23TV on Saturday, Feb. 23, 2013. If you saw the trailer and thought the show would be melodramatic, terribly acted, poorly written and hackneyed, you were right. I hate to judge a book by its cover, but I was right. Meanwhile, another Atlanta-based series that's trying to get picked up, Skin Deep, which focuses on the intersecting lives of a diverse group of gay men, promises to be a better show.
The first episode of Steel River, "Man in the Mirror" (NSFW), is tragic, and not because of what happens in the storyline but because it exists. In the episode, R&B singer Terry (Emani Williams) is lambasted by his manager, Shelton (Wesley Adams), for receiving flowers from another man. Terry is then left to think about "the man in the mirror" and his vocal group, Chance, and confronts his lover, Dexter (Jordan King). As I watched, I kept thinking, "Are these first-time actors who left their day jobs?" As in other series dramatizing down-low relationships, the acting here is laden with screaming and over-emoting.
Also, that creepy, thriller-type music that plagues Cover, a 2008 film that also trafficked in the down-low stereotype, is all too prevalent in this 9-minute clip. I was thinking, "Is this a drama series about black men struggling with love, relationships and sexuality, or is it a horror-thriller movie?" If anyone reading this is planning to put together yet another portrayal of black men on the down low, please don't use this played-out formula. At least the series doesn't feature a woman crying about her deceitful husband or boyfriend with creepy music playing in the background... yet!
I should point out that the second episode of Steel River, "Rejection" (NSFW), which was posted on Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013, is somewhat better. The acting isn't as bad, and the episode introduces new characters, so there is more to work with. Nevertheless, the series is problematic. It focuses too much on confrontation, and the character and story development is slow. I would like to learn who the characters are and what their purpose within the premise of the show is, so that I can develop informed opinions about them and care about them. I guess there's only so much that can be done in a 10-minute webisode.
In stark contrast to Steel River, Skin Deep might do the trick. What makes this series original is that it focuses on the intersecting lives of three gay black men and three gay white men from different backgrounds, belief systems, social classes and age groups. Although at this point the show only has a 10-minute teaser clip on YouTube (NSFW), that series' website features character bios and a show synopsis that describes it as Queer as Folk meets Noah's Arc meets Crash. I can kind of see the comparisons, but this show seems more intense yet deconstructed. Although it's clear that the struggles of these gay black and white men with their relationships and with coming out connect them in spite of their differences, the series seems to suggest that what really connects them is simply their shared quest for love.
Although my opinion is an early one, I feel that highlighting diversity in this way is just as important as having formulaic gay romantic comedies that feature couples that just happen to be interracial, for whom issues of race are not main factors in their struggles with love and dating. I'm not expecting to be blown away by Skin Deep, but it's exploring unusual ways or portraying gay relationships that could make it groundbreaking. Skin Deep is based on 150 interviews, to give it realistic story lines, and it plans to explore the experiences of gay men from Asian and Latino backgrounds too, thereby promising to be a more meaningful series for the gay community than Steel River. According to Arch Productions on YouTube, Skin Deep has signed with a company to represent it and is being pitched to networks.
Check out slideshow of media representations of down-low men of color:
The first episode of Steel River, "Man in the Mirror" (NSFW), is tragic, and not because of what happens in the storyline but because it exists. In the episode, R&B singer Terry (Emani Williams) is lambasted by his manager, Shelton (Wesley Adams), for receiving flowers from another man. Terry is then left to think about "the man in the mirror" and his vocal group, Chance, and confronts his lover, Dexter (Jordan King). As I watched, I kept thinking, "Are these first-time actors who left their day jobs?" As in other series dramatizing down-low relationships, the acting here is laden with screaming and over-emoting.
Also, that creepy, thriller-type music that plagues Cover, a 2008 film that also trafficked in the down-low stereotype, is all too prevalent in this 9-minute clip. I was thinking, "Is this a drama series about black men struggling with love, relationships and sexuality, or is it a horror-thriller movie?" If anyone reading this is planning to put together yet another portrayal of black men on the down low, please don't use this played-out formula. At least the series doesn't feature a woman crying about her deceitful husband or boyfriend with creepy music playing in the background... yet!
I should point out that the second episode of Steel River, "Rejection" (NSFW), which was posted on Sunday, Feb. 24, 2013, is somewhat better. The acting isn't as bad, and the episode introduces new characters, so there is more to work with. Nevertheless, the series is problematic. It focuses too much on confrontation, and the character and story development is slow. I would like to learn who the characters are and what their purpose within the premise of the show is, so that I can develop informed opinions about them and care about them. I guess there's only so much that can be done in a 10-minute webisode.
In stark contrast to Steel River, Skin Deep might do the trick. What makes this series original is that it focuses on the intersecting lives of three gay black men and three gay white men from different backgrounds, belief systems, social classes and age groups. Although at this point the show only has a 10-minute teaser clip on YouTube (NSFW), that series' website features character bios and a show synopsis that describes it as Queer as Folk meets Noah's Arc meets Crash. I can kind of see the comparisons, but this show seems more intense yet deconstructed. Although it's clear that the struggles of these gay black and white men with their relationships and with coming out connect them in spite of their differences, the series seems to suggest that what really connects them is simply their shared quest for love.
Although my opinion is an early one, I feel that highlighting diversity in this way is just as important as having formulaic gay romantic comedies that feature couples that just happen to be interracial, for whom issues of race are not main factors in their struggles with love and dating. I'm not expecting to be blown away by Skin Deep, but it's exploring unusual ways or portraying gay relationships that could make it groundbreaking. Skin Deep is based on 150 interviews, to give it realistic story lines, and it plans to explore the experiences of gay men from Asian and Latino backgrounds too, thereby promising to be a more meaningful series for the gay community than Steel River. According to Arch Productions on YouTube, Skin Deep has signed with a company to represent it and is being pitched to networks.
Check out slideshow of media representations of down-low men of color:
via Gay Voices by AP on 3/5/13
WASHINGTON -- Sixteen Democratic senators are calling on the Veterans Affairs Department to keep granting waivers so that same-sex spouses can be buried in national cemeteries.
The lawmakers said in a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki that they wanted to commend him for a recent decision granting a waiver to former Lt. Col Linda Campbell so that her deceased spouse, Nancy Lynchild, could be laid to rest in Willamette National Cemetery near Portland, Ore. Now they're looking for more such approvals, as well as an expedited waiver process so that mourning veterans need not also worry about where their spouse can be buried. Campbell also wants to be buried in that same cemetery.
The waiver disclosed last month was the first of its kind. Spouses, and in some cases, dependents are eligible for burial with a veteran at a national cemetery. However, the Defense of Marriage Act defines spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The National Cemetery Administration, in response to that law, published a directive in 2008 stating that individuals in same-sex civil unions or marriages are ineligible for burial in a national cemetery or state veterans cemetery that received federal funding.
But Shinseki has the authority to approve waivers as he sees fit and did so based, in part, on evidence of a committed relationship between the Oregon couple.
"It is unacceptable that, after selflessly serving their nation, these men and women who have given so much would not be allowed to be buried next to the person they love in our national cemeteries," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We expect that you will continue to grant similar waivers moving forward. Making this important change is a matter of basic fairness and equity."
A copy of the letter, to be delivered Tuesday, was provided to The Associated Press. The VA declined to comment.
The lawmakers said in a letter to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki that they wanted to commend him for a recent decision granting a waiver to former Lt. Col Linda Campbell so that her deceased spouse, Nancy Lynchild, could be laid to rest in Willamette National Cemetery near Portland, Ore. Now they're looking for more such approvals, as well as an expedited waiver process so that mourning veterans need not also worry about where their spouse can be buried. Campbell also wants to be buried in that same cemetery.
The waiver disclosed last month was the first of its kind. Spouses, and in some cases, dependents are eligible for burial with a veteran at a national cemetery. However, the Defense of Marriage Act defines spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The National Cemetery Administration, in response to that law, published a directive in 2008 stating that individuals in same-sex civil unions or marriages are ineligible for burial in a national cemetery or state veterans cemetery that received federal funding.
But Shinseki has the authority to approve waivers as he sees fit and did so based, in part, on evidence of a committed relationship between the Oregon couple.
"It is unacceptable that, after selflessly serving their nation, these men and women who have given so much would not be allowed to be buried next to the person they love in our national cemeteries," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We expect that you will continue to grant similar waivers moving forward. Making this important change is a matter of basic fairness and equity."
A copy of the letter, to be delivered Tuesday, was provided to The Associated Press. The VA declined to comment.
via Gay Voices by Jason Hughes on 3/5/13
Jane Lynch showed off another skill -- there is apparently nothing that she can't do, as SheWired pointed out -- during her appearance this week on "Conan." The "Glee" star has performed a few times on the show, but she hasn't yet had the chance to break into a rap solo. It came about when she was talking about the "celeb city" that is Elton John's Oscars party.
She talked about seeing Nicki Minaj there, and then said that she got to perform Minaj's "Super Bass" on "Glee." After having spent hours learning the song, it was no wonder that she has it committed to memory. And she didn't hesitate to lay down some rhymes for Conan and his audience.
The audience reaction was so enthusiastic, they almost started drowning out Lynch's flow as she progressed. The first time the "Glee" cast tackled Minaj was way back in February 2012. At the time, Minaj Tweeted that she was honored. Now that Minaj is part of the Fox family as a judge on "American Idol," it makes sense that she'd be even more receptive to the New Directions tackling her music.
Look for Jane Lynch's lyrical flow on "Glee," Thursdays at 9 p.m. EST on Fox. "Conan" airs every weeknight at 11 p.m. EST on TBS.
TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.
She talked about seeing Nicki Minaj there, and then said that she got to perform Minaj's "Super Bass" on "Glee." After having spent hours learning the song, it was no wonder that she has it committed to memory. And she didn't hesitate to lay down some rhymes for Conan and his audience.
The audience reaction was so enthusiastic, they almost started drowning out Lynch's flow as she progressed. The first time the "Glee" cast tackled Minaj was way back in February 2012. At the time, Minaj Tweeted that she was honored. Now that Minaj is part of the Fox family as a judge on "American Idol," it makes sense that she'd be even more receptive to the New Directions tackling her music.
Look for Jane Lynch's lyrical flow on "Glee," Thursdays at 9 p.m. EST on Fox. "Conan" airs every weeknight at 11 p.m. EST on TBS.
TV Replay scours the vast television landscape to find the most interesting, amusing, and, on a good day, amazing moments, and delivers them right to your browser.
via Steve Rothaus' Gay South Florida by Steve Rothaus on 3/5/13
Singing star Carly Rae Jepsen announced Tueseday via Twitter that she will not be headlining at the Boy Scouts of America 2013 National Scout Jamboree because of the Scouts' anti-gay policy:
As an artist who believes in equality for all people, I will not be participating in the Boy Scouts of America Jamboree this summer...
— Carly Rae Jepsen (@carlyraejepsen) March 5, 2013
I always have and will continue to support the LGBT community on a global level ...
— Carly Rae Jepsen (@carlyraejepsen) March 5, 2013
and stay informed on the ever changing landscape in the ongoing battle for gay rights in this country and across the globe.From GLAAD:
— Carly Rae Jepsen (@carlyraejepsen) March 5, 2013
Recording artist Carly Rae Jepsen announced today that she will withdraw as headliner of the 2013 National Scout Jamboree, following a campaign launched by GLAAD and Eagle Scout Derek Nance, whose Change.org petition calling on the 'Call Me Maybe' star to denounce the Boy Scouts' ban on gay scouts and scout leaders has amassed over 62,000 signatures.
GLAAD has been leading a campaign with groups such as Scouts for Equality to call on the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to adopt a national non-discrimination policy that would end the BSA's practice of ejecting gay young people and adults.
via Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines on 3/5/13
If the reports are accurate, the child could emerge as Kim's successor as dictator.
via Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines on 3/5/13
The man insisted the pictures which showed he lacked the body of a superhero were unfair.
via Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines on 3/5/13
Support for the dictator has risen since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
via gay san juan puerto rico - Google News on 3/5/13
Five Signs That Puerto Rico is Gayer Than You Think
EDGEOnTheNet Through March 31, San Juan's biggest art museum is hosting The Zero Degree of the Image, a retrospective of the work of gay Puerto Rican artist René Santos, who lost his life to AIDS in 1986. 2. Orlando Cruz is now the first out pro boxer in the world. |
via Queerty by Lester Brathwaite on 3/5/13
As is common knowledge, gay marriage will trigger the end of civilization as we know it. If the Westboro Baptist Church and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI say so, it must be true, right?
Thankfully, the Coalition of People Whose Lives Are Ruined Whenever Other People Are Treated Equally recognizes that and churned out this completely serious and not at all satirical ad — the best part of which is when little What’s-Her-Face asks her (pretty hot) daddy if he and mommy will still love her if the gays are allowed to marry.
“Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that….”
Throw an Oscar in that little girl’s face just for the shifty eyes she’s giving.
Permalink | Post a comment
Read more articles at Queerty or GayCities
via Gay/Lesbian News on 3/5/13
Tracy Thorne-Begland made history on Friday when he was sworn in as a judge on the Richmond General Court, which makes him Virginia's first openly gay judge, Richmond CBS-TV affiliate WTVR reports.
via Gay/Lesbian News on 3/5/13
For all its beauty and travel convenience , Puerto Rico is sometimes overlooked by gay travelers, who assume that it's simply not a very LGBT-friendly place.
via Funny Junk Most Popular Contents on 3/4/13
Finest girl in Miami... theleek.com/2013/03/hottest-angie-varona-self-shots/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.