More Friday Male Beauty

A McCain Presidency = LGBT Citizen's Nightmare

Meanwhile, John McCain continues to demonstrate that he should be regarded as every LGBT citizen’s worse nightmare and illustrates why, in my opinion, the Log Cabin Republicans who support him need some serious mental health care. Lately, McCain’s offered so many reasons for gays not to support him that it is almost difficult to know where to start. These positions on multiple issues make it clear that all LGBT Americans should be working diligently to make sure he is NOT elected come November. First, McCain has come out in support of the effort to amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage. Here are highlights from PR Newswire on McCain’s support of the anti-gay initiative in California:
*
SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- United States Senator John McCain today announced his support for the California Protection of Marriage initiative on the state's November ballot, leaders of the ProtectMarriage.com campaign announced. In an email received by the ProtectMarriage.com campaign, Senator McCain issued the following statement: "I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."
*
If that is not reason enough to fear a McCain presidency, then there are his views on what type of individual’s he would nominate to the U. S. Supreme Court. In his statements, McCain has idicated that he would nominate individuals like Roberts, Alito and Scalia. As Judith E. Schaeffer at Huffington Post notes, with more justices like Robert, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, gays would still be criminalized under the sodomy statutes and Lawrence v. Texas would have been decided very differently. Here are highlights from her column:
*
Many people probably don't recall much, if anything, about June 26, 2003, but I recall a great deal. That's because it's the day on which the Supreme Court issued one of its most important rulings in the area of individual rights and human dignity. In Lawrence v. Texas, a sharply divided Court struck down a Texas state law that prohibited consensual, private sex between adults of the same gender, a law that essentially made criminals out of gay men and lesbians. Five justices held that the law was an improper intrusion on the right to liberty guaranteed to everyone by the Constitution, effectively invalidating all state laws that invade the home to prohibit so-called sodomy.
*
But as significant as the Lawrence ruling was, I am mindful that four justices did not join Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was part of the majority in Bowers (truly a low point in her judicial career as well), declined to join the majority in overruling that decision. She agreed, however, that the Texas "sodomy" law was unconstitutional, but only because it treated same-sex and opposite-sex couples differently.
*
Three justices dissented outright from the ruling in Lawrence: then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Scalia and Thomas are still on the bench today. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist has been replaced by the equally ultraconservative John Roberts, while Justice O'Connor has been replaced by the extreme right-wing Samuel Alito. Counting the numbers, then, it's very clear that the constitutional protection of the essential human dignity of gay men and lesbians is hanging by a slender thread on the Supreme Court. John McCain has praised Justice Scalia and has also promised to put more justices like Roberts and Alito on the Court, which should be a consideration for any voter who cares about gay rights and the future of the Supreme Court.
*
Lastly, and as icing on the cake, there is McCain’s position on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The April, 2007, letter that McBush sent to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (a copy of a portion is set out below) said the1993 law, "unambiguously maintains that open homosexuality within the military services presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline.” The bottom line is that McCain is out of step with the direction of the country and/or a willing tool of the Talibangelicals (a great term a commentor used on Pam's House Blend). Here's the letter:

Decorated Army Sergeant Discharged Under Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Homo-hater, Elaine Donnelly, president of the so-called Center for Military Readiness, who in reality has no actual military expertise or experience herself (she is a former political appointee hack), is probably having an orgasm over this news story concerning how Darren Manzella, the Army Sergeant who appeared on 60 Minutes with Lesley Stahl to tell his story of coming out of the closet to his colleagues and commanding officer, and who served openly in Kuwait without incident, has now been discharged under DADT. Ms. Donnelly would much rather see the military issue waivers to convicted felons and waive minimum educational requirements in order to meet enlistment requirements as opposed to allowing qualified, competent, patriotic gays to serve in the nation’s military. Living in the Hampton Roads area with its huge number of military personnel, many of whom are gay and lesbian, underscores the idiocy of DADT which serves no true purpose other than to pander to the bigotry and hate of frigid looking bitches like Ms. Donnelly and obsessed closet cases like Robert Knight. Here are highlights from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)’s press release on the matter:
*
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Decorated Army Sergeant Darren Manzella has been discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service, effective June 10. The Iraq war veteran was the first openly gay active duty service member to speak with the media while serving inside a war zone. In December 2007, Manzella was profiled by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes. He told correspondent Lesley Stahl that he served openly during much of his time in the Army, with the full support of his colleagues and command.
*
“The discharge of battle-tested, talented service members like Sergeant Manzella weakens our military in a time of war. National security requires that Congress lift the ban on gays in the military and allow commanders to judge troops on their qualifications, not their sexuality,” said Adam Ebbin, Communications Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).
*
Sergeant Manzella said, “My sexual orientation certainly didn’t make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn’t be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve.” Manzella, 30, enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002 and was twice deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While under fire on the streets of Baghdad, he provided medical care to his fellow soldiers, Iraqi National Guardsmen and civilians. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, and also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.

Friday Male Beauty

The Recession Is Just Beginning

For some time now (probably since last August or earlier) I have been predicting that a bad current economic downturn was coming due to the collapse of the U.S. Housing market and that despite all the statements from the Pollyanna set, that it was going to be long and ugly. Now, Washington Post business columnist, Steve Pearlstein is saying the same thing. In my view, until housing begins to turn around - or at least stabilize - things are only going to get worse. Despite this, Congress has yet to really wake up to the magnitude of the problem. In addition to homeowners on the verge of losing their homes, the impact of the housing collapse is having an ever wider ripple effect. Ask anyone in a business related to real estate and they will tell you that things are dire indeed. here are some highlights from Pearlstein's column:

*

So much for that second-half rebound. Truth be told, that was always more of a wish than a serious forecast, happy talk from the Fed and Wall Street desperate to get things back to normal. It ain't gonna happen. Not this summer. Not this fall. Not even next winter. This thing's going down, fast and hard. Corporate bankruptcies, bond defaults, bank failures, hedge fund meltdowns and 6 percent unemployment. We're caught in one of those vicious, downward spirals that, once it gets going, is very hard to pull out of.

*

In explaining why that second-half rebound never occurred, the Fed and the Treasury and the Wall Street machers will say that nobody could have foreseen $140 a barrel oil. As excuses go, blaming it on an oil shock is a hardy perennial. That's what Jimmy Carter and Fed Chairman Arthur Burns did in the late '70s, and what George H.W. Bush and Alan Greenspan did in the early '90s. Don't believe it.

*

American Express and Discover warn that customers are falling further behind on their debts. UPS and Federal Express report a noticeable slowdown in shipments, while fuel costs are soaring. According to the Case-Shiller index, home prices in the top 20 markets fell 15 percent in April from the year before, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac report that mortgage delinquency rates doubled over the same period -- and that's for conventional home loans, not subprime.

*

You know things are bad when middle-class Americans have to give up their boats and Brunswick, the nation's biggest maker of powerboats, is forced to close 10 plants and lay off 2,700 workers. For much of the year, optimists took comfort in the continuing strength of the technology sector and exports to fast-growing countries around the world. But even those bright spots have dimmed.

*

Like the rain-swollen waters of the Mississippi River, this sudden surge of downbeat news has now overflowed the banks of economic policy and broken through the levees of consumer and investor confidence. At this point, there's not much to do but flee to safety, rescue those in trouble and let nature take its course. And don't let anyone fool you: It will be a while before things return to normal.

Final Thursday Male Beauty

A Genetic Theory of Homosexuality

Slate, msn's online magazine, has an article that looks at some new research that indicated homosexuality may have a genetic basis and, moreover, it may play a roll in enhancing the fertility of women who have gay relatives. No doubt, Porno Pete LaBarbera, Daddy Dobson, and Robert Knight, among others, will be having violent fits and splattering spittle all around them at this news. God, forbid, gays might have a role in God's plan. Oh, but I forgot - the Christianists don't believe in science or evolution. Here are highlights from the Slate story:

*

Gay couples can't have biological kids together. So if homosexuality is genetic, why hasn't it died out? A study published last week in PLoS One tackles the question. It starts with four curious patterns. First, male homosexuality occurs at a low but stable frequency in a wide range of societies. Second, the female relatives of gay men produce children at a higher rate than other women do. Third, among these female relatives, those related to the gay man's mother produce children at a higher rate than do those related to his father. Fourth, among the man's male relatives, homosexuality is more common in those related to his mother than in those related to his father.

*

The theory is called "sexually antagonistic selection." It holds that a gene can be reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other. The gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes—and is passed down through—high rates of procreation among gay men's mothers, sisters, and aunts. . . . it does explain the high similarity of sexual orientation between identical twins, as well as patterns of homosexuality in families. It's also plausible because sexually antagonistic selection has been found in other species. And many scientists who think environmental and prenatal factors influence homosexuality also believe that genes play a role.

*

I don't know to what extent this theory will end up explaining male homosexuality. But its emergence threatens to change our thinking about gay men in several important ways.

*

The full scientific article can be found here.

Gay Dating - Or Why Are So Many Gay Guys Pigs?

It is a few weeks shy of one (1) year since I had my final altercation with my former long term partner and our relationship ended. After that night, we never lived under the same roof again. During most of the past almost year I have not dated at all other than a few times a month or two ago and that venture did not pan out. I've met one new guy since who seems quite wonderful, yet there are circumstances that raise questions as to whether there's a possible future on that front. Thus, a few times now I have posted a personal ad - which is actual how I met the guy that still might be a possibility - partly out of boredom and partly out of a blind hope/wishful thinking that Prince Charming is out there somewhere just waiting to discover me.

*

Perhaps it's because I'm direct by nature or maybe it's the attorney in me. In any event, I am pretty specific in my ad about what I want in a guy - intelligence, stability, honesty, a desire for monogamous commitment - and what I do not want in a guy - smokers, overweight guys, guys with facial hair, guys who would not accept that my children are and always will be a part of my life. I make it clear what I'm looking for because I don't want to waste my time on hopeless endeavors nor do I want to waste someone else's time. Some of the responses I have received are unbelievable, but NOT in a good way. They range from nasty expressions of wanting nasty, kinky anonymous sex to personal attacks on me for being "arrogant" for not wanting just anyone to in one case even foul comments about my children. Am I missing something, or is it wrong to have some standards? Likewise, if I say I want someone height and weight proportionate, am I unreasonable for not being pleased with responses from guys who are borderline obese or worse?

*

I truly do not get it. One jerk - the one who made comments about my children - even claimed that people like me (I assume with standards of what they want and who won't sleep with just anybody) "give the gay world a bad name." Funny, I thought it was guys - probably like the respondent - who are promiscuous and have constant random anonymous sex, use drugs, and have no values were the ones that gave us gays a bad image. Silly me. How could I be so confused? The straight world is fucked up in many ways and has its share of promiscuous sluts, but far too many gay guys seem to make those straights look pretty even keeled in comparison. In any event, my a portion of my response to this jerk was as follows:

*

If refusing to settle for guys who are (a) slobs who are fat and out of shape, (b) do not care what they look like, (c) promiscuous and have sex with anything breathing, (d) have the IQ of a fruit fly, makes me arrogant, then I'm guilty as charged. . . . . It's guys like YOU that give the gay world a bad name. You're probably pissed that I wouldn't give you the time of day and, I suspect, I'd be right in doing so.

*

Okay, my response wasn't very nice, but I sure felt better for it. You can insult me all you want, but take foul shots at my children, then you'd better look out. Meanwhile, I have no intention of "settling." After what I have been through in the coming out process (which has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars not to mention much heartache and turmoil) I feel I am entitled to pick and choose who I want to have a relationship with. That said, Prince Charming, hurry the Hell up and find me!!

More Thursday Male Beauty

New Find Supports Evolutionary Biology Theories

The Washington Post has a story on a new find of a "missing link" type of creature that adds one more plank in support of the theory of evolution argument - not that facts and data mean anything to the hard core Christianist who could be struck in the head with a 2x4 and still not get the message. For those with some open mindedness to facts and logic, the discovery may have some relevance since the new fossil discovery of this primitive four-legged creature in Earth's history should help evolutionary biologists to better understand the evolution of fish to advanced animals that walk on land. Here are a few highlights:

*

The 365 million-year-old fossil skull, shoulders and part of the pelvis of the water-dweller, Ventastega curonica, were found in Latvia, researchers report in a study published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Even though Ventastega is likely an evolutionary dead-end, the finding sheds new details on the evolutionary transition from fish to tetrapods. Tetrapods are animals with four limbs and include such descendants as amphibians, birds and mammals.

*

"At the time there were a lot of creatures around of varying degrees of advancement," Ahlberg said. They all seem to have similar characteristics, so Ventastega's find is helpful for evolutionary biologists. Ventastega is the most primitive of these transition animals, but there are older ones that are oddly more advanced, said Neil Shubin, professor of biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago, who was not part of the discovery team but helped find Tiktaalik, the fish that was one step earlier in evolution.

*

One question that scientists are trying to figure out is why fish started to develop what would later become legs. Edward Daeschler, associate curator of vertebrate zoology at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, theorizes that the water was so shallow that critters like Ventastega had an evolutionary advantage by walking instead of swimming.