Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Morning Edition - 10/26/05

Stay Away; Folks Hate You More
Pastor Ryan Rush of Bannockburn Baptist Church in Austin Texas told the Ku Klux Klan to stay away from a rally set to take place November 8 supporting proposition 2 which supports the Gay Marriage Amendment – a cause near and dear to the religious right. Basically, proposition 2 establishes the definition of marriage as one man and one woman – implicitly including this definition in the Texas constitution; prohibits judges from ever redefining marriage and restricts government bodies in Texas from using tax dollars to officially recognize or give benefits to homosexuals. Pastor Rush says he doesn’t want a riot to ensue because a hate-group, such as the Klan, supports this important cause. Quick question Reverend; so you’re saying it’s okay to hate the gays, but hating the gays while hating people of color is out of the question?

How Much Fat?
McDonald’s has finally relented to the pressures that be and agreed to display nutritional information right on the food packages and containers beginning February 2006. The new “sticker shock” will debut at the Olympic Winter Games in Turin, Italy. McDonald’s presently has nutritional information on their website and in some restaurant postings. A 2003 documentary entitled “Supersize Me” exposed McDonald’s as one of the leading fast food chains having meals with poor nutritional value.

Uh, Yeah… Let Me Swab Your Mouth First
We will soon have an at-home HIV test that will make knowing your partner’s or prospective partner’s HIV status a no-brainer. OraSure Technologies, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania makes the home test – as easy to take as a home pregnancy test. Although the product has been ready for quite some time, there was fear that people testing positive for HIV would panic and suffer further damage without counseling. Now, researchers believe that the advent of new drugs may have made folks realize that you can live (medicated of course) with the condition. “If we’re going to win the war against AIDS, we need to make HIV testing as easy as pregnancy testing,” said Dr. Freya Spielberg, a researcher in the Center for AIDS Research at the University of Washington.

Noah’s Arc; Tonight starting at 9:00 p.m.
My new favorite program airs its second episode today. The hunks of Noah’s Arc take center stage as Wade experiences some jealousy about Noah and Ricky’s past. If you’re wondering what the f*ck I’m talking about then you’re in luck, because tonight Logo will rerun the premiere episode at 9 p.m., followed by the new episode at 10 p.m. The new episode will only be 30 minutes long. As Carlos C. joked last weekend, my phone is ringing non-stop from close friends who are enjoying the show as much as I am. Tomorrow, our blog will thoroughly discuss the first two episodes. I’m very interested in getting the female perspective on this show, so please tune-in. Boys… you know I know what you think!

On Blast
Scenario: You’ve already engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse with your current partner. The new HIV home test is released and you have the opportunity to know, without a doubt, your partner’s HIV status. Would you ask them to take the test and share the results with you or would you continue to trust their word and forgo the test?

Keep passin’ the open windows…


caspar608 said...

Why do you think that the Reverend hates gays because he is holding a rally to ban gay marriage? I personally don't support gay marriage simply because marriage was intended for a man and woman (from a Biblical and Constitutional perspective and because). Does that mean I hate the gay community. I would certainly hope that my many gay friends would beg to differ. Please tell me why gay marriage is so important to the gay community if you can get nearly the same rights if you register as domestic partners and give each other healthy care proxy and power of attorney rights? Is the inability to collect social security a pressing issue as well if your partner passes? That would be silly - social security has been pilfered and looted for a while now so I am sure I won't even get social security when I am an old bag. So if this Reverend guy is indeed a hate monger - and not just a man of the cloth who is simply makin a stand on Biblical law - please let me know and I will stand corrected.

caspar608 said...

Oh, and the HIV question.
YES! If I can know before I have sex with someone then definitely pass me that test please.


When it comes to men...hands down...I will ask my partner regardless of how long we have been lovers to take the test. You know who you are involved with but you never know who your sexual partner is involved with or who he he has been involved with. So yes, I would have him take that home test in a quick second. I only trust GOD and myself when it comes to HIV so bring it on...I AM ALL FOR IT!

caspar608 said...

By the way, I watched the Lifetime movie "Human Trafficking" with Mira Sorvino and I was truly sickened. Human Trafficking is the new form of slavery. Each year women and children of all races and nationalities are sold and bought into slavery by pedophiles and perverts all over the world. At least 18,000 are reported a year in our country alone. Unfortunately if we weren't such a sex drenched society the need for such perversions probably would be so high. Henceforth my on blast question for today is this: Do you think our society has gone too far with sex and the desire for gratification? Is it possible to find satisfaction without sex?


Casper, the bottom line is that as a so called Reverend it is not his place to judge. Yes, Biblical fact is that marriage was intented for MAN and WOMAN but it is not our place here and now to point a finger and judge. If they want to get married let them who cares. We should be worried about what we face when our time comes to meet our creator. I fear GOD more than I do these knuckle heads that have nothing better to do then judge. Can you imagine his punishment for judging so harshly. These types of issues are test of our faith in GOD and some of us will pass and some of us will fail. I choose to follow what the Lord has asks of me that makes my soul feel right.

John Whiteside said...

Caspar, you ask: "Please tell me why gay marriage is so important to the gay community if you can get nearly the same rights if you register as domestic partners and give each other healthy care proxy and power of attorney rights?"

Well, the Texas amendment would REMOVE our ability to do just that. It's not just "no marriage," it's "ha ha, you can't even protect your household anymore."

That's pretty damn mean.

Oh, and why should we have to pay a bundle in lawyer's fees to get what you get automatically?

The Biblical perspective is irrelevant to CIVIL marriage, which is what we're talking about here - not what churches do. And I'm curious what you think is a "Constitutional" basis for marriage.

Cocoa Rican said...

Caspar, let me preface my diatribe by saying, I don’t have any intention on sharing in an institution that has a success rate of less than 50%, nor do I wish to mirror the straight community in how I fashion the structure of my relationships. That said, you’re DEAD wrong. Gays shouldn’t be subjected to ALMOST the same rights as their straight counterparts – especially when we pay the SAME taxes, etc. as our straight counterparts. Moreover, it’s insane to ask gays in committed relationships to give up their right to their benefits such as social security – as shitty as that system is – and the right to make medical decision for their partners in the event of an emergency. As much as some folks hate for me to make the comparison – I feel the gay marriage issue directly mirrors the issue of interracial marriage. Back in the fifties and maybe even early sixties, blacks and whites were not allowed to marry and today that notion seems to out in left field, it’s inconceivable. EQUAL rights are equal right honey… “almost the same” rights doesn’t cut it for anyone – gay, straight, black or white. One of the reasons I’ve chosen to highlight the religious’ right apparent disdain of homosexuals is because it goes against the very teaching of our Lord that includes love and tolerance. No one group can achieve harmony, understanding and open dialogue without love and tolerance.

As for the HIV question – no, I wouldn’t have my partners take an at-home test. I get tested and do what I can to protect myself. Although I would encourage them to be tested and share openly, I don’t feel it necessary to pressure my partners about sharing this with me. I protect myself and hope for the best. Now, if they specifically share their status – and it’s positive – our sexual interaction can become dicey. (Wifey, you remember the story….)

Jeanine said...

On Blast: I would absolutely ask my partner to take the test. If they think it's too private to share with me, then we don't need to be sleeping together. Period.

petite morceau said...

Okay, let me answer the simple question first lol - yes, I would ask my partner to take the HIV home test - you can never be 100% certain that your partner is being faithful to you and frankly, I do NOT play with my life by doing the "well I trust him so I don't need it".

As for gay marriage - I am all for it. For the record, I am a heterosexual female. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry? They are people just like you and I and if they're in love and want to BE married, there is no logical reason why they shouldn't be allowed to.

IN my opinion, it is ridiculous to use the Bible as an example because unless you live strictly by EVERYTHING the Bible tells you to do and not to do, then you're just being a hypocrite by singling out one thing that suits you and disregarding the rest.

Also, the fact that I don't think homosexuality is wrong or deviant, then I consider whatever form of relationship a gay couple may want to form/have should not be something that anyone else can ban.

For those of you who share my opinion, you should consider writing to your State Senators and letting them know that you support gay marriage and put the pressure on them, as I have.

Cocoa Rican said...

For the record... some factual background on Texas' proposition 2:

Actual language of Proposition 2

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

SECTION 2. (which would NOT be included in the Constitution) This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Section 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: “The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Background: Texas law clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. This amendment would put the same language in the Texas Constitution. It would also prohibit the state, cities and counties from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage, regardless of the gender of the participants.
The legislative act that includes the amendment also includes wording that says that persons may still use private contacts to grant certain rights to others without creating a legal status similar to marriage. However, this additional wording would not become a part of the Constitution or of any state law even if the amendment passes. Therefore, it carries little or no legal weight.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram says,

Leave it at the altar
The very first sentence of the Texas Legislative Council's background information on Proposition 2 states why this constitutional amendment is unnecessary: "Current state law prohibits the issuance of a marriage license for the marriage of persons of the same sex."
The Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 2003. Voters should not ignore the redundancy of this proposed amendment, although many of its supporters do.
As unnecessary as Proposition 2 may be in real terms, it is not meaningless, at least not for those politicians who are trying to prove their ultraconservative credentials to Republican voters who, for all intents, decide statewide elections in the March primaries.
Skeptics might be justified in calling this the "Gov. Rick Perry Re-Election Amendment," given the highly publicized bill-signing ceremony that Perry's people put together on June 5 at a Fort Worth church school so the governor could demonstrate his commitment to the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Constitutional amendments do not require the governor's signature.
Proponents of this initiative attempt to justify their support by wrapping it in terms that evoke motherhood and Old Glory. However, all the lullabies and red-white-and-blue bunting in the world won't mask what Proposition 2 would achieve if voters are deluded enough to approve it: state-sanctioned discrimination.
At the very least, the politicians who are campaigning on this particular platform could be honest. They don't want gay and lesbian Texans to be afforded the same civil rights that heterosexuals receive just by saying, "I do" and filing a state-issued license with a county clerk.
Voters should recall that Perry's bill-signing ceremony was the occasion on which he suggested that gay and lesbian veterans should move somewhere else if they wish to get married, because Texas would never recognize same-sex unions.
He might as well have said: "Thank you for your service to your country. Now go away."
Amendment supporters argue that same-sex couples do have access to the same rights that are afforded heterosexuals who marry, and that passage of this amendment won't change that. But homosexual couples can only exercise those rights if they spend lots of money hiring lawyers to draw up contracts that outline property rights, inheritance and survivorship issues.
How in the farthest stretch of any imagination is that fair? How can that possibly meet the democratic principle of equality that is a hallmark of American government?
Typical of the wording of constitutional amendments, Proposition 2 confuses some people when they read "prohibiting this state or any political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
What does that mean? It means, even if it isn't stated plainly, that the state, counties and cities would be prohibited from creating or recognizing any legal status afforded to same-sex couples that is identical or similar to heterosexual marriage.
An even shorter version: No civil unions for gays and lesbians in Texas.
Proposition 2 is an ugly amendment. At its core is discrimination and an unfounded fear that gay people who are committed to long-term relationships in some way threaten the institution of traditional marriage.
Texas voters need to defeat it on Nov. 8.

The Star-Telegram recommends a no vote on Proposition 2.

Jeanine said...

On the gay marriage issue:

Let me preface my statement by saying that I am a Christian and hold my beliefs to be dear however, when it comes to issues of church and state, I feel that is of tantamount importance to separate personal religious beliefs from those laws of the state.

Having said that, I cannot find any substantive argument in favor of barring gay marriage without it being tied to a moral/religious idea. I see the parellels in struggle to other movements and I sympathize. I agree that it's either equal rights or no rights at all. You cannot legally differentiate between groups of citizens based on their miniority groups status (that includes sexual orientation). The equal rights clause of the constitution makes that very clear.

My personal beliefs, or anyone else's, are secondary and inconsequential to greater goal. For us to be a nation that protects all of its citizens fairly and uses the same means test to do so, we must protect the civil liberties of everyone, not just heterosexual Americans. I mean here were are fighting to implement a democracy in Iraq, and we are subjugating our on people (but that's another topic).

Religion aside, right is right and treating individuals differently b/c they choose to love someone of the same gender is legally wrong.

Finally, let me say that religion is a personal relationship between you and your God. It is not and was not meant to be used as a tool to exclude others. Anyone who has read and studied the word of God knows how homosexuality is viewed however, that same person also knows that EVERYONE can be forgiven if they repent for their sins. There is no litmus test sin neither is there a greater sin. On our judgment day will be held accountable for our actions but again, that's between that person and their God. I for one have more than enough to answer for on my day to be worried about anyone else.

I honestly do not have a problem with gay marriage from a constitutional perspective. I do not see how constricting the definition of marriage does any good. In my opinion

Cocoa Rican said...

and another thing Caspar... how the f*ck did you change shyt up and turn this into your personal On Blast question?

caspar608 said...

I am in a button pressing mood today.
Truth be told, I would be more than happy to be the flower girl at Cocoa's wedding.
Separation of church and state, blah blah blah. I am on my way to a funeral and in a bad mood so FU to you all (I say that with love so put down your weapons).
I wasn't judging anybody either so if you think that then you REALLY need to get laid. I didn't know that just wanted all the gays out of Texas (which is clear from what they are trying to do). So for all of those who are about to rock, we salute you! Everone else needs just as much valium as i do right now. HECTOR! Did you take my pills the last time you were at my house dammit!

caspar608 said...

I don't believe in keeping things Politically Correct either...I would rather say what I fel like saying and learn something new rather than say what makes EVERYONE comfortable just to fit in thank you very much.
And to the many Buddha's who have enlightened me today, thanks again.

Cocoa Rican said...

Look you button pushin' two-bit hookah...after taking statements like, "Feed the children" and turning them into an eat-my-nipples fest, I don't expect you to get on any high horses. As for being the flower girl at any wedding of mine - forget it! I'd rather tongue kiss Satan - besides, the last thing I need is a 6 foot blonde walking the isle before I make my grand entrance at 5'7"! Final Answer: Adults should share the same rights across the board; your religious beliefs should be exercised personally and pretty much privately and laws cannot/should not be written to accommodate any ONE religious, racial, or gender group. ...and the next time you start some shyt, I'm gonna kick you where your allege your baby's daddy hasn't been in a while!

caspar608 said...

Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahaha. See I needed that laugh and I knew if I started with you I would get one. Ahhhhhhh. I feel so much better now.
And no B.D. hasn't been where neither the sun shines or moon glows - but I am working on the grown man who likes to breastfeed.
P.S. I am back to auburn, so there.

Early Pregnancy Tests said...

Hello,. As I was searching for info on Early Pregnancy Tests I stumbled upon your site. This was not exactly what I was searching for but I'm glad I found your site. I was actually looking for more particular info re Early Pregnancy Tests . Anyways, good luck!