Elton Had A Baby So The BBC Interviewed A 'Kill The Gays' Supporter

Elton John and his partner David Furnish had a baby via a surrogate mother.
And, apparently all hell broke loose.
It seems that Andrew Pierce, some English columnist, feels the Furnish-John's had a baby because they wanted a new accessory, a new plaything. God forbid they had a baby for the same reasons most couples do, because they want to be parents.
People gossiped about the round-the-clock nannies, and the special renovations being done at Elton's Los Angeles penthouse to create the most dazzling nursery ever. But, I wonder here, if Elton and David were a straight couple using surrogacy, a straight couple with loads of money to raise the child in the lap of luxury, would we be raising such a fuss?
It's 2011, people, let's stop qualifying people by their sexual orientation. Let's talk about parenting, or coupling, or creating a life together, without making noise about the so-called differences between the straight way and the gay way.
And, while we're at it, let's take a good long look at the media, not just here in our country, where the New York Post lauded Elton and his "wife"for having a baby, but also let's peek at the BBC, who decided to make their coverage of the Furnish-John baby a little more balanced by including an interview with a supporter of state sponsored execution of gay men in its coverage of the birth.
Really? To make a story of two men who want a child, to raise a child, to nurture a child, more fair and equitable, you include information about killing gay people?
This, murder, is fair?
See, back on the 28th of December, the BBC’s News at Six bulletin ended with the story of Elton John and David Furnish's first child. There were no interviews with the new fathers, just news of the birth, followed by one interview, with Stephen Green, of right-wing group Christian Voice; Green is someone who has in the past supported the death penalty for gay men.
Birth of a child? Execution of gay men?
I must be missing the point. Or, is the BBC missing the point?
When does this end? Where is the joy over the news of a child being born, without the instant stigma and blatant homophobia and bigotry because the child is born to a gay couple?
I long for the advancement of equality for LGBT people, where we can have a child, or not have a child, marry, or not marry, live where we choose, work where we choose, walk down a street without fear of attack or harassment simply for being LGBT.
But we'll never achieve that equality when a fair and balanced news story about a gay couple, famous or nor, having a child, includes interviews with people who wish to see gay men put to death.

source

Foot-In-Mouth-Disease: A Top Five

It's almost a given that people will say something stupid, and The Advocate has put together the Top 5 Gay Related Gaffes, Goofs, and Dipshits from the Double 0's.

Here we go:

NUMBER FIVE: George Michael on cruising the woods and park lands for sex.

“The handful of times a year it's bloody warm enough, I'll do it. I'll do it on a nice summer evening. Quite often there are campfires up there. It's a much nicer place to get some quick and honest sex than standing in a bar; E'd off your tits shouting at somebody and hoping they want the same thing as you do in bed.”

Um, George, yeah, maybe a little too much information, honey.

NUMBER FOUR: U.S. congressman Barney Frank on the National Equality March.

"I literally don't understand how [it] will do anything. People are kidding themselves. I don't want people patting themselves on the back for doing something that is useless.”

I usually agree with Barney, but this time he was waaaay off the mark. The march was widely seen as a success, from galvanizing the LGBT community, from making a show of who we are and what we want, and, maybe, just maybe, it helped with the passage of a piece of legislation I like to call the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Plus, marriage equality became the law of the land in Washington, D.C.

Barney? Sometimes a march is more than a march.

NUMBER THREE: The BBC poll.

The BBC, in talking about the proposed Kill The Gays legislation, put up a poll on its web-page under the heading, Should homosexuals face execution?”

After bringing forth the nutjobs and the asshats, and facing the ire of an enraged world community, the BBC changed its question to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”

The BBC later apologized for its asshattedness and generally stupidity.

NUMBER TWO: GLAAD staement[s] on the Adam Lambert AMA performance brouhaha.

They first said: "After it was announced that ABC decided to cancel appearances by openly gay singer Adam Lambert on Jimmy Kimmel Live and Dick Clark’s ‘New Year's Rockin' Eve,' the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) spoke with ABC today regarding concerns that Adam Lambert was being held to a double standard."

ABC's respnse to GLAAD staement: 'Given the live nature of the American Music Awards, Adam Lambert’s performance, which differed greatly from his rehearsal, caught many, including the network, off guard. This is not a question of Lambert’s sexual orientation. As is evidenced by GLAAD’s media report card, ABC is at the forefront of positive gay and lesbian portrayal on television. We welcome openly gay performers and look forward to continuing our great work within the LGBT community.'
"It would appear that the kiss between Adam Lambert and his keyboardist did not factor into ABC’s decision, ABC has a history of positive gay and transgender inclusion that includes featuring kisses between gay and lesbian couples on-air."

GLAAD statement number 2: "Since his American Music Awards performance occurred GLAAD has consistently advocated that Adam Lambert and openly gay artists not be held to a double standard. As we have expressed publicly, it is disappointing that ABC will not give Lambert a chance to perform at this time. GLAAD’s discussions with ABC focused on confirming that his sexual orientation was not a factor in their decisions. ABC confirmed this is not about a same-sex kiss or his sexual orientation but about being 'caught off guard.' GLAAD asked ABC and calls on them for clarification on 'caught off guard' so that the community knows why Lambert is being denied the opportunity to perform on the network."

GLAAD statement number 3: "We appreciate ABC's commitment to gay and transgender inclusion in other programming. However, let us be clear that GLAAD remains steadfast in our assertion that Adam Lambert is being subjected to a double standard by ABC as an openly gay performer. We do not support ABC cancelling Adam Lambert's past and future performances. We urge the community to reach out to ABC and express their concerns that Adam Lambert is being subjected to a double standard."

Can press releases be schizophrenic? Apparently, yes.

NUMBER ONE: Dethroned Former Miss California Carrie Prejean and Her Magic Digits.

“I was all by myself. I was sending a boyfriend at the time, who I loved and cared about, a video of me. I was a teenager at the time and never did I ever think it would come out.”

Of course, we all know now that this quote where she's trying to defend her LadyFingers Extravaganza came out just before seven other, more explicit, videos, of The Carrie Prejean and Her Amazing Finger Puppet Show came out.

I love stupid!

source

The BBC's Of Asshattery

You know, every so often, well, about every eight minutes, I am made aware of the fact that we live in a world filled with asshats and idiots, haters and homophobes. But nothing seems more shocking to me than the idea that a television network, the BBC in England, actually posted an online poll asking their viewers if homosexuals should be killed.

Oh yes they did.

It was sparked by the story out of Uganda, and their proposed legislation that homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, and the British Broadcasting Corporation's "Africa Have Your Say" Web site asked for people's views on whether Uganda has gone too far and whether there should be any laws against gays.

The page was originally entitled "Should homosexuals face execution?" but was later changed to "Should Uganda debate gay execution?" which is oh so much more politically correct. But even with the :::cough cough snort:::: name change several British politicians denounced the taxpayer-funded broadcaster for treating the execution of gays as a legitimate topic for discussion.

What's next, BBC? Murdering Black folks? Killing the Jews--as if that hasn't already been done? Killing anyone who dare be different than some idealized view of what normal might be?

There is nothing wrong with discussing what's happening in Uganda and around the world regarding the LGBT community, but how dare anyone have a legitimate conversation about whether or not it's right to kill anyone.

Civilized world, my ass.