Some NZ gay online diversions

Looking for short book to read then check out Eve and Adam in Suburbia

A novel about love, friendship and infidelity. Covering a period of 2.5 years, it follows the comical and dramatic events that lead neighbors Eve and Julien to an important decision: should they leave their cheating partners, Adam and Romeo, or not? The story shows suburbia as a modern-day Garden of Eden, where men, rather than women, are enticed to be naughty. Romeo’s temptation comes from bisexual bus driver Nick, whose wife Cynthia seduces Adam.When Eve and Julien discover these indiscretions, they initially attempt to hide them, until they realize they need each other’s help to make up their minds about the future. In the background, Eve’s single sister Dawn takes her religious devotion to, literally, insane levels. This is a problem, since Eve appointed Dawn in her will as guardians to her twins.

Website: eveadamsuburbia.blogspot.com
Planet Franck: planetfranck.blogspot.com

For another Auckland gay blog check out Uroskin's blog - Put 'em all on an island
Blog: uroskin.blogspot.com

PC or not?

BBC Radio 1 found it at the centre of a controversy over the censoring of the words "faggot" and "slut" from the words of "Fairytale of New York" and then reinstating them.

As reported in The Independent.

"Embarrassed BBC bosses have climbed down over attempts to ban words it deemed offensive in the Christmas hit song "Fairytale of New York".

The emotionally gritty song boils over as the late Kirsty MacColl and The Pogues' Shane MacGowan engage in a vocal domestic that rings bells in households across the world every year."

So what do you think it is offensive to use the word "Faggot" in a derogatory manner. This is bound to divide between those who think the BBC was been politically correct and those who think the words should be changed to be less offensive.

This on top of this weeks "gay" comment does make you wonder about language and how it changes over time.

So is it offensive or not? The only test I can apply is to replace it with other words which refer to other ethnic groups.

It is an interesting debate and there is no right or wrong answer other than listening to what is been said. One thing is clear is that if someone attempts to go for the PC gone mad respond then they are not listening and fail to understand why some people might be offended.

Sometimes of course there can be no resolution other than agreeing to disagree.

So what do people think - should the words be changed in this song? Comments welcome below.

Deena Pawson you are the weakest link

Not only was Deena Pawson not smart to post critical comments about her workplace on her Bebo profile as follows:

“well work sucks, guyfawkes are coming up, and we have to close @ midnight, which is totally gay.. like the frickn management there! and OMG the GOSSIPS! zOmG, i dnt nO eNgLISh1!!!oneoneexclamationmark!!!! LOL LOL”

An employment lawyer commented that reading the comment that the word gay = crappy.

OUTLine NZ's general manager Neil Denney was reported in gaynz.com as saying:

Although the user does not recognise any sexual connection to the word [gay], it is still there and the word is still as harmful when commonly used as a tool against a minority,"

"As an organisation, OUTLine NZ cannot agree that the word 'gay' has a meaning of "crappy" under any circumstance."

Of course it is nothing new the word "gay" is continuing to move and the saying "Oh that so gay" crept into use during the late 90s to mean that is so stupid as opposed to really gay.

Still an insult though but does it offend?

What about young people struggling with their sexuality. Does it make it harder for them.

So put some comments below.

Beware of the Lavendar Mafia

Christopher Pearson latest opinion piece on moves for Civil Unions in the ACT would be laughable if he didn't believe what he wrote.

With the headline "Arrest this abomination" he makes some sweeping statements as follows.

The first misconception to nail is that the opposition to gay marriage is a homophobic response. Insisting that, in terms of universal human values, the marital union of a woman and a man is qualitatively different from other intimate relationships cannot sensibly be construed as anti-homosexual. Resisting the libertarian rhetorical assertion of moral equivalence between straight and gay relationships is not the same as condemning the latter.

Funny how those who oppose gay marriage and civil unions always claim that they are not homophobic but marriage is only available to heterosexual couples.

He then goes on:

From a conservative Christian perspective, the survival of our civilisation depends on societies where stable, fruitful marriages are the norm and the state intervenes proactively in their support.

Again the classic argument against gay marriage. If he really believed this then those who cannot have children should be banned from marriage. And of course lets not forget a lot of gay and lesbian couples have children.

The next statement is the funniest

When the law allows civil unions and ceremonies that, as the ALP's pre-election undertaking puts it, "mimic marriage", it sends out all the wrong signals, especially to the young and impressionable, and to people whose sexuality is at its most fluid.

There are lessons to be learned here from the hardball tactics gay activists engaged in, playing the politics of identity. Think of all the boys and girls who would once have been understood to be "going through a phase" in late adolescence, and who were as often as not given tea and sympathy and time to sort things out.

By the late 1960s the lavender mafia was on hand, looking for new recruits and dispensing a one-size-fits-all, ready-made gay identity to anyone remotely interested. Who knows how many of the denizens of Sydney's Oxford Street really belong there and how many were encouraged to reach premature conclusions about their nature and their needs?

This has to be the funniest statement I have read. Firstly he ignores the fact that a lot of gay and lesbian's were married and leading a double life (and a number of people still do). The second he associates gay life with Oxford Street which is only a small part of the gay and lesbian spectrum of people.

Oh and I love the "lavendar mafia" statement!

As for Christopher Pearson read his profile at SourceWatch and you will discover who he really is

US Democrats work to end HIV+ Visitor ban

While the Bush regime is moving to "streamline" entry for HIV positive visitors 30 Democrats have called for the ban to be lifted.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Oakland, CA) led Members of Congress to sign on to a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to oppose a proposed rule, prompted by the Bush administration, to impose a travel ban on certain individuals afflicted with the HIV infection who wish to come into the United States.

This is welcome news and while it may not lead to an immediately lifting of the ban following the departure of Bush at the end of 2008 this ban may actually get lifted leaving just a handful of countries which ban HIV positive visitors.

ACT Civil Union get the green light

Kevin Rudd has stated that he won't veto the ACT government's move to implement Civil Union legislation.

This is good news for same sex couples in Australia and the first step to removing discrimination and is a nice change to the Howard legacy.

It should also mean the same sex civil unions entered into overseas will be recognised by ACT.

The pressure will now go on the other Australian states to introduce similar legislation.

Australia shows movement on civil unions

During the Australian election campaign a lot was made that there was no difference between the Labor Party and the National/Liberal coalition.

What is becoming clearer is there is a fundamental shift occurring on the social and environmental issues and a new direction for Australia.

The decision to proceed with ratifying Kyoto is the most visible sign of this.

For the gay and lesbian population the signs are encouraging that same sex relationships will no longer be discriminated against.

It is also appearing that changes at the state level will bring about some form of civil union legislation.

The ACT plans for civil unions have now been revived with the exit of the conservative Howard Government in Australia which blocked the legislation last time.

In addition Victoria has announced plans to introduce a register to allow same sex relationships to be recognised.

The Federal government has indicated it will not support gay marriage, but has said it will remove discrimination against same sex couples in areas such as superannuation, taxation and other areas.

All these are positive signs.

There is still a long way to go before Australia catches up with New Zealand but it is heading in the right direction.