Danielle Powell was kicked out of her ultra religious university in Omaha, Nebraska for being gay in 2012, and now says the only way the school will transfer her credits to another school is if she agrees to pay a tuition bill of $6,300.
Over the weekend I read a Huffington Post blog by B.J. Epstein about gays who are against gay marriage. As I read it, I bristled with irritation. Who is she to say what an individual can and can't think? Is she a gay man? Does her position as a literature professor make her uniquely qualified to dictate who can say or believe what?
I shuddered when I read one of the closing remarks. She made the astonishingly contradictory statement that "having freedom of choice means that we give people options and respect their decisions - but they shouldn't argue against or stand in the way of gay-marriage-supporting gays". How can you respect someone's opinion and then say that that person should keep their that opinion to themselves? The sentence just doesn't make sense. In fact, it's the sort of thing you could imagine some character in Orwell's 1984 saying. "You can think this but you cannot think this".
I felt I had to respond to Epstein, not so much about her arguments, but more because I found it frustrating that she in effect told people who question the mainstream to shut up and keep their views to themselves. So here is my response, firstly on gay marriage and then on her article.
Not being deeply religious, I find it hard to understand why those who are find gay marriage so terrifying. According to the standard religious view, gays marrying gays will trigger the collapse of modern society. Aside from being a tad dramatic, I have to say I find this quite an odd claim. When I think of myself as some sort of harbinger of doom, I'm a bit taken aback. I spend most of my time worrying about my flowerboxes or coming up with ideas for blog posts, not plotting the downfall of western democracy. A far greater threat to modern society seems to be the total absence of love and respect between individuals, which is an issue in both the gay and straight worlds.
Another argument is that gay marriage is condoning an unnatural lifestyle. Aside from the presence of gay monkeys, gay penguins and gay dolphins in the natural world, I find this to be another odd one. I spent much of my teenage life desperately trying to make myself straight. I won't go into details, but I can assure anyone reading this that it was an abject failure and completely miserable. I don't really care if I am gay because of my DNA or my divorced parents. I tried to make myself not gay, and failed. Therefore for me, being gay is my natural state.
I had a quick glance in the Bible to see what exactly the Pope and the Archbishop are basing their assertions on, that homosexuality is sinful and condoning it is a bad idea. A single passage (Romans 1:24-27) by Paul appears to be where the whole position emanates from. He was writing to the Romans of the 1st Century, suggesting that getting drunk, having sex with anything that moved and obsessing about fame, wealth and power were not recipes for happiness. To be honest, if you look at the state of the western world today, I can't help but think Saint Paul would probably see some parallels.
The gay world is characterised by promiscuity and a lax attitude towards partying, something that we, as gays, need to acknowledge. But that is not the entire gay world. What Paul saw in first century Rome is visible today in New York, London or Berlin. I've been to the gay scenes in these places and can assure anyone who hasn't that they are indeed 'worldly' places. But these places also exist in the straight world. Gays do not have ownership rights over promiscuity and drug abuse.
Furthermore, all people, gay or straight, are capable of love. And all people are capable of spiritual as well as material union. The latter is what I think Paul was criticising, not the former, which is what we should all aspire to. Marriage has changed, whether you like it or not. And If the starting point is that religious marriage is a recognition by whichever god you believe in of a spiritual connection between two individuals, then I think this is something that religious people could maybe accept.
With regard to Epstein's article, I have to say I think her line of argument is a major part of what is holding back full equality for gays. I find the notion of forcing a group of people to accept a view they do not agree with a horrifying one. I do not believe a church should be forced to marry people they do not want to, even if its policy may seem old-fashioned or bigoted. That change in stance has to come from within the church itself, otherwise it is a disturbing expression of totalitarianism. I also do not believe a church should prevent other people from marrying other people if they want to. We live in a liberal democracy where such beliefs should be tolerated.
If you want people to change their minds about something, then sit down and chat with them. It's easy to insult a group of people or a category via a blog post or a carefully-crafted tweet on the Internet. It is harder to do so if you are sat in front of them having a cup of tea. Those who do not like the idea of gay marriage are perfectly entitled to that view, regardless of whether you think it is palatable or not. To be honest, if all a religious person knows of the gay world is that it is characterised by sex and partying, which it often is, then who can blame them? The onus is on us, as gay men, to show that it is more than these things and that their fears of moral decline and collapse are unfounded.
So, Professor Epstein, rather than write off the views of millions of individuals, how about we organise a polite meeting with yourself (a frustrated gay rights activist), me (a slightly conflicted 26-year-old gay), the vicar from my mum's village (a very pleasant ex-army man) and a few randomly selected people off the street? I suspect it would be an interesting discussion and infinitely more productive than a rather snide blog post.
In a 21st-century dominated by multi-dimensional heroes like Batman and Iron Man, the Superman franchise conjures up feelings of all-American nostalgia more than anything. Zack Snyder, director of “Man of Steel,” attempts to depart from this in his summer blockbuster, but does not replace it with anything more substantial leaving us essentially with another explosion extravaganza but little else.
Henry Cavill is a promising actor, but his performance as the extra-terrestrial from Krypton is not for one second believable. Cavill seems most comfortable during the beginning of the film, which due to production by Christopher Nolan (who also did the “Batman” franchise), is a lengthy and morose sequence of fragmented scenes that document Clark Kent’s self-discovery. Nolan’s influence makes Superman’s clearly demarcated sense of good and evil feel unnatural and all too simple.
Cavill brings too much rugged sex appeal to the role, making him more reminiscent of Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine in “X-Men” than of someone who would wear a red cape in all seriousness.
It’s a tough role to pull off — while Brandon Routh in 2006’s “Superman Returns” arguably captured the role better with his more innocent approach, it clearly wasn’t strong enough to have led to a successful franchise. Cavill is intriguing, dynamic and has undeniable charisma, yet it feels like he’s holding back as the script gives him little to work with in terms of characterization or complexity. While Cavill’s performance leaves some things to be desired, he isn’t ultimately to blame for the film’s shortcomings.
“Man of Steel” opens with a home-birth on Krypton as the planet is self-destructing. Russell Crowe goes through the motions as Jor-El, baby Kal-El’s father, who rockets his son to Kansas to preserve his race. General Zod (Michael Shannon) is introduced as the film’s forgettable villain as he attempts to steal Krypton’s Codex — a log of the planet’s genetic information — from Kal-El, which remains a theme for the entirety of the movie as Zod threatens to reconfigure earth into a new Krypton at humanity’s expense.
Unfortunately, the dialogue in “Man of Steel” is as melodramatic and bland on earth as it is on Krypton. (The film’s writer, David S. Goyer, clearly is not afraid of clichés.) For the first hour, scenes jump from school buses and cornfields in Kansas to Arctic tundra with little context given, and some sort of loud catastrophe quickly interrupts any conversation that seems like it will reveal something about the characters.
Diane Lane and Kevin Costner do a perfectly satisfactory job as Clark Kent’s adoptive parents. Amy Adams, however, never seems invested in her role as reporter and love interest, Lois Lane. Adams practically sleepwalks through life or death scenes, and her kiss with Clark Kent toward the end of the movie is awkward and forced. It’s not that Adams and Cavill lack the ability to portray a believable romance; they simply do not have the script to do so, even though “Man of Steel” is an origins story that should make the audience feel attached to its characters.
The majority of the film feels like a confusing dream of drawn-out action scenes. It becomes all too easy to forget who is fighting whom, and for what reason, as Cavill darts through the air. “Man of Steel’s” shining moments are the interspersed scenes of Superman’s childhood, with a young Clark Kent played by Dylan Sprayberry and Cooper Timberline. Both actors do a fine job capturing Kent’s teen angst, sense of alienation and repressed desire to use his powers for good in a world that would not accept him.
Even though “Man of Steel” is a long 143 minutes, it goes by quickly, perhaps due to Hans Zimmer’s overpowering score and the confusion caused by Snyder’s non-linear plot. In the film’s defense, it’s difficult to create a Superman story that appeals to contemporary America. Superman’s unwavering sense of right and wrong fit so well during the Cold War, but now his narrative seems naive with more widespread recognition of the country’s internal issues and fear that its global supremacy is waning.
“Man of Steel” ends with the promise of a sequel as Cavill puts on Clark Kent’s endearingly nerdy glasses. Perhaps without the need to jumble together a creation story, it’s more likely Snyder will pull off a sequel should this chapter’s box office take justify it.
A new Pew Research Center study provides an abysmal assessment of the Catholic Church for those of us who value LGBT inclusion in our faith communities. In a study of 1,197 LGBT adults released on June 13, 2013, 79 percent of those questioned rated Catholicism as "unfriendly" to LGBT people. Only 4 percent view our church as "friendly."
This is probably not surprising to many, due to the long list of anti-LGBT statements, actions and positions promoted by leaders of the Catholic Church, both here in the U.S. and across the globe in recent decades. Even as the study was being released, word of Pope Francis' acknowledgement of a "gay lobby" within the Vatican and his linkage of that phrase with corruption among church leaders raised anxiety among LGBT Catholics. We wonder what it is we'll be blamed for this time, even as media representatives and others scramble to interpret what the pope meant in his speech.
However, for those of us who identify as Catholic and LGBT, as supportive family members, or simply as ordinary Catholics dismayed by the Pew survey's findings, it raises at least two key challenges. First, it forces us to question how these numbers can coexist with other national surveys that repeatedly demonstrate that U.S. Catholics support civil rights for LGBT people at levels higher than any other denomination, and that relatively few Catholics view same-sex relationships as sinful. For example, in a March 2011 study by Public Religion Research Institute, 71 percent of Catholics supported civil marriage for same-sex couples, and only 39 percent said homosexual behavior was morally wrong.
We've also seen a succession of high-ranking Catholic public officials, including Vice President Biden; Govs. Cuomo, Gregoire, O'Malley, and Quinn; and a host of congressional and state legislative leaders speak out about how their faith has led them to support or even lead efforts to further LGBT equality. Catholics increasingly cite their social justice commitments in Letters to the Editor and other statements supportive of same-sex marriage. Clearly, while Catholics in general are supportive of LGBT people, the church is still perceived as unwelcoming. This seems to indicate that the church is so identified with the positions assumed by its leadership that the reality of support among "rank-and-file" Catholics is rendered essentially meaningless, at least in the religious context.
In addition, we are challenged to revisit episodes like Cardinal Timothy Dolan's Easter statements that the church needs to be more welcoming to lesbian and gay people. Since his statements to that effect on two national television news shows, the cardinal has failed to respond to invitations from several groups of Catholics involved in ministry with LGBT Catholics and our families to talk about what a more welcoming church might look like.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which Cardinal Dolan currently serves as president, recently sent bulletin announcements and preaching points to all the Catholic dioceses across the country, directing them how to use the recent feast of Trinity Sunday to denounce marriage equality. A small group of people attempting to bring attention to the cardinal's blog saying gay people are welcome at the table but must first wash our hands were prohibited by police from entering St. Patrick's Cathedral. A bishop on Long Island under Dolan's supervision who had removed a gay man from volunteer ministry -- after receiving an anonymous letter complaining that this parishioner had legally married another man -- returned 18,000 petitions demanding reinstatement with a brusque, dismissive note.
In essence, Cardinal Dolan, and by extension Catholic leaders across the U.S., may have briefly benefited from some great sound bites but then failed to do anything substantive to improve the real situation of LGBT people and our families. In fact, the Trinity Sunday campaign indicates that the bishops fully intend to continue their efforts to uphold discrimination against LGBT people in church and society, even as their flock grows increasingly angry at this position.
The Pew Survey should serve as a wake-up call to Catholics -- not only those supportive of LGBT equality but all those who in conscience disagree with the bishops on a broad range of issues related to gender and sexuality, from women's ordination to birth control. We need to grapple with the fact that our bishops are defining Catholicism in a way that is directly opposed to what most Catholics believe and want our church to be. We have a worse brand-identity issue than J.C. Penney!
If we want Catholicism to be identified as a hostile institution by four out of five LGBT people, and by many of those who support us, then let the bishops continue to own "Catholic, Inc." However, if we truly believe in the baptismal identity we reaffirm each Easter season and want our church to be seen as a help and haven for those in need, it is time for Catholics to claim a leadership role within our church, much as we have done in the public square. We must begin to take on the bishops when they act in ways that are contrary to our central creed that God is incarnate in all humans, including LGBT people and those who love and support us.
There are many options for Catholics troubled by the findings of the recent Pew survey. Most effective would be ensuring that anytime a church leader says something untrue, unkind or unwarranted about LGBT people; fires someone due to sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or an expression of support for LGBT people; or takes a position on a public matter that upholds institutional discrimination, call him out on it. Let him and others know that he is speaking only for a minority of Catholics.
If you know LGBT people in your parish or faith community, tell them you're glad for their presence and gifts. Ask if they find the community supportive, or if they find anything that happens there discomforting. If a priest delivers an anti-gay message, let him know you find it problematic, given Jesus' model of broad inclusion.
I hope the Pew research is repeated, and that action among the members of our faith will lead to a better result in the next report.
We have to admit, when we first saw what Jonathan Adler and Simon Doonan's Shelter Island, NY home looked like when they bought it, we were shocked. But after checking out the "before" and "after" photos on Gardenista, it was evident that the grounds were originally sad looking and undernourished. But knowing how chic and stylish this design duo is, we knew they would never have kept it like that for long.
The two hired Vickie Cardaro of Buttercup Design Group who created a relaxing outdoor space complete with stunning plants, flowers and soothing accessories. Their serene pool, for example, is surrounded by Elijah Blue fescue on one side, and a cool cabana on the other. The rest of the property has a more exotic vibe with crushed shells as driveway gravel, pine-needle mulch and Alluaudia cactus from Madagascar.
We have to give these two props for really creating a space that's one-of-a-kind, but of course now we're wondering: Can we come over for a game of ping pong?
Scroll through the photos to see their amazing home and be sure to head over to Gardenista for more information.
Get inspired to spruce up your own garden by clicking through our slideshow.
Do you have a home story idea or tip? Email us at email@example.com. (PR pitches sent to this address will be ignored.)
On Tuesday, June 3, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo finally followed up on his so-called Women's Equality Act (WEA) legislation, which aims to "end discrimination and inequality based on gender" across the state. The legislation features a 10-point plan to address gender-based discrimination and includes measures to:
- Achieve pay equity (in New York women earn 16-percent less than men in similar or equal positions)
- End sexual harassment in all New York workplaces (currently, sexual harassment is not prohibited in workplaces with three or fewer employees -- seriously -- and women accounted for 75 percent of all sexual harassment claims in 2011
- Stop source-of-income discrimination (women in New York account for 76 percent of all housing voucher recipients, yet many landlords can refuse to rent to recipients who use these vouchers, greatly harming women)
- Stop housing discrimination for domestic violence victims (currently, women account for 85 percents of the state's domestic violence victims, yet under current law, domestic violence victims are not protected against housing discrimination)
While the Women's Equality Act certainly aims to remedy a portion of the wrongs that women still face, the legislation completely neglects to address the vulnerability of transgender women.
Trans women -- and the transgender population as a whole -- face significant levels of discrimination and violence in their daily lives and need the same type of protections that are outlined in the WEA. Indeed, as shown in the 2013 report "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Hate Violence in 2012," transgender women are "2.14 times as likely" to experience discrimination, threats/harassment, or intimidation as cisgender individuals, and this rate is even higher for trans women of color.
What's more, according to the report, the greatest perpetrators of discrimination, threats, and intimidation against trans women continue to be landlords and employers. (Police officers also continue to be frequent perpetrators of violence against trans women and the transgender community as a whole, though I will have to address this in a subsequent post.) These alarming figures are also detailed in the report "Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey," disputing any notion that trans women still occupy a space of male privilege. Clearly, when people have the power to extend or rescind job offers, or have the power to confirm or deny housing to a person because of her gender, something is wrong.
But despite these vulnerabilities, transgender women and their concerns are completely absent from the Women's Equality Act.
I recognize that are some who don't recognize trans women as "true" or "real" women and argue that transgender issues, such as ENDA (the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and GENDA (New York's Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act), aren't women's issues, drawing a thick line behind trans women and so-called "women-born women." This gender policing has most recently been seen in the ongoing war surrounding the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival and its continued exclusion of trans women.
Though the music festival's struggle has been heavily documented elsewhere, I bring it up here to address the central issue at hand: the policing of womanness. This politics of exclusion that aims to separate "women-born women" from transgender women reminds me of the scene in Star Wars: A New Hope where Princess Leia tells Gov. Tarkin, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
Perhaps the same can be said about this tightening around what -- or who -- constitutes a woman. The more we try to control it, the more we realize it is an identity without boundaries. Womanness has been precariously defined by everything from skin color (African-American women, for example, were not considered women under the law during the antebellum South), occupation, clothing, and sexuality. Let's not forget that lesbians -- particularly lesbians of color -- were fiercely excluded from the second-wave feminist movement because they were seen as a perverse, antithetical presence to true women's rights (the "lavender menace," for the history buffs). That's right: Once upon a time, lesbians were not deemed to be "real" women either.
The exclusion of trans women echoes this same misjudgment about womanhood and ironically misses the point behind the music festival's respelling of "women": that only an individual can self-define her gender and her relationship to herself, society, and other women. Any political formation that seeks to define womanness for -- or against -- another woman may find itself more preoccupied with policing impossible, porous boundaries than working toward a more progressive, diverse, and inclusive society.
Cuomo's fight for women's equality cannot afford to overlook transgender women, who are especially vulnerable to violence, harassment, and discrimination in housing, employment, and health care. I hope that the Women's Equality Coalition will recognize the vulnerability of all women and join the call for ensuring that all women are included in the Women's Equality Act.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is confirmed to make an appearance at an upcoming Pentagon event observing June as the month for Pride, which has been set for June 25, alongside Senior Adviser to President Valerie Jarrett, the Washington Blade has learned.
Pentagon Press Secretary George Little confirmed in a statement provided via email to the Washington Blade that Hagel would participate in the event, making him the first defense secretary to take part in a Pentagon Pride celebration. A defense official said Hagel would provide opening remarks to the group in person.
“Secretary Hagel looks forward to participating in this year’s DoD Pride event at the Pentagon on Tuesday June 25, which is organized by a group of Defense Department service members and civilians to celebrate LGBT Pride Month,” Little said.
Emphasizing Hagel’s support for gay and lesbian service members — who have been able to serve openly since the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — Little recalled the West Point address that Hagel delivered at the U.S. military academy at West Point on May 25. During his speech, the secretary said, ”The United States military has long benefited from the service of gay men and lesbians. Now they serve openly with full honor, integrity, and respect.”
“Secretary Hagel believes that the open service of gays and lesbians make our armed forces stronger and that this month’s DOD Pride event is just one way we honor what these service members and LGBT civilians do for our country,” Little added.
Additionally, Little said Jarrett will join Hagel on stage to represent the White House and deliver the keynote address on behalf of President Obama.
“Secretary Hagel is also looking forward to welcoming Valerie Jarrett to the Pentagon who will represent President Obama in delivering the keynote address at the event,” Little said.
The occasion will be the second Pride celebration at the Pentagon following “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal, but the first in which a sitting defense secretary will make a live appearance. Last year, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta addressed the group via a video message. A defense official said the Pride event is being organized by a “resource group” with the support of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Hagel’s participation is noteworthy because at the time of his nomination for defense secretary, many members of the LGBT community were wary.
Many expressed concern over comments he reportedly made to the Omaha World Herald in 1998 when he said the then-nominee for U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg shouldn’t be confirmed because he’s “openly aggressively gay.” Hagel later apologized for the remark when these remarks surfaced, and Hormel eventually endorsed Hagel’s nomination.
As a Republican U.S. senator representing Nebraska, Hagel had a dismal voting record on LGBT issues. He voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, but didn’t cast a vote in 2006.
Still, over the course of the confirmation process, Hagel said he supports “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and pledged to implement “expeditiously” benefits available under current law for troops with same-sex partners.
Instead of telling gay men, "Always use a condom," we need to address the reasons so many men don't. When we have new generations who didn't watch their friends die horrific deaths from AIDS now dismissing condom use as "political correctness," and serious writers claiming that "hedonism" is what drives reckless sexual behavior, it's time for a reality check.
Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, there have been gay men who scream "homophobia" anytime attempts are made to get them to behave like responsible adults who actually respect themselves and their partners. They have conflated liberation and license, convinced they are entitled to do whatever they want -- whenever, wherever and with whomever -- and woe to anyone who dares to burst their delusional bubble.
These guys believe they can "party and play" -- gay shorthand for using crystal meth (usually) and having sex (frequently unprotected) -- with impunity, or that it's up to HIV-positive guys to eliminate themselves from the dating and sex pool because they (we) are "unclean." Basically, this type of gay man believes it's others' responsibility to behave responsibly, that anyone who gets between him and what he considers his "freedom" is "the enemy."
Well, self-hate never came so prettily packaged as it does when it's got a chiseled face, an expensive haircut and washboard abs. Self-destruction never looked so appealing as when it wears the mask of words like "party" and "play."
Let's be frank: Gay men don't account for 78 percent of all new HIV infections among men in this country because we are hedonists. We don't make up 63 percent of all new HIV infections in this country because we are having "natural" sex. Sorry, but it's not natural to believe such statistics are acceptable.
But it is what happens when we confuse "horny" with "lonely." It's what happens when we don't want to admit that being called "sissies" and "fags" all our lives still hurts, that we still bear deep scars from being bullied as kids, that maybe we've taken the messages we constantly receive about being "different" to mean we are broken and unlovable.
Ron Stall, a medical anthropologist and director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for LGBT Health Research, has identified four intertwining, synergistic epidemics, or "syndemics," of psychosocial health conditions among urban gay and bisexual men: childhood sexual abuse, partner violence, depression and drug use. Together they lead many of us to engage in behavior that puts us at risk for higher rates of anxiety, depression and alcohol and other substance abuse, and at greater risk for HIV infection found in our community.
The good news -- and it is very good news -- is that the vast majority of gay men do not abuse drugs or engage in high-risk sex. Stall pointed in an interview to his study of gay men's psychosocial health problems. Of 812 men who reported one problem, 11 percent had recently engaged in high-risk sex -- as had 23 percent of the 129 men reporting three or four problems.
Clearly, these men showed evidence of resilience by the fact that 89 percent with one problem, and 77 percent with three or four problems, hadn't been driven to engage in high-risk sex -- unprotected anal intercourse, to be precise. Stall told me, "We were able to show that guys who do the best job of resolving internalized homophobia [or 'self-stigma,' as researchers are calling it] are the least likely to have current victimization, substance abuse and compulsive [high-risk] sex."
What this means is that to be effective, HIV prevention and substance abuse interventions need to build on gay men's resilience, to be "strength-based." As Stall put it, "We're so focused on risk factors to the point that we forget about resilience. It seems to me a smarter way to go would be to look at the guys who are thriving in spite of the adversities, how they pulled that off, see what the lessons learned are, and apply that to the interventions we already use and have developed."
Put in layman's terms, Stall said, "Getting a population of people not to hate themselves is good for their health. This is not rocket science."
Clearly, most of us get beyond the condemnation, ostracism and rejection we experience and survive and thrive as out, proud and resilient gay men.
Others of us (and I will admit I was one) don't honestly confront the demons that hound us until something like an HIV diagnosis makes us question how it could have happened. That honesty can lead to some painful places. In my own experience it meant finally admitting that watching all my friends die while we were young exacerbated the loneliness that was already far too familiar. Would I have been putting myself at risk -- calculated risk, but risk nonetheless -- if I had been able to fill that loneliness with the love of one man instead of anesthetizing it with what is rather creepily called "survival sex" with multiple men?
It's foolish and ignores the high prevalence of HIV among gay men to claim it's our "right" not to use condoms, that unprotected intercourse is nothing more than "natural" sex. It's also foolish to ignore the impact of the psychosocial "drivers" of our behavior, to pretend we are merely free agents whose choices about sex and drugs are driven by sheer pleasure-seeking -- and not too often by things like depression and loneliness.
In this Pride Month, how about if we do something worthy of truly proud, resilient gay men: stop looking at condoms and safe sex as "unnatural" but as simply what proud, healthy gay men use and do because we respect and value ourselves and one another.
On the last season of "True Blood," Pam finally became a maker, and while escaping the Authority headquarters, shared a steamy kiss with her progeny, Tara. This season, Pam's got to make time for Tara on top of her other complicated relationships, as her own maker Eric finally reveals that the friend he had in the Authority was his sister. Plus, there's the True Blood drink shortage, the Louisiana governor's war on vampires, and disputed rights to Fangtasia. What's a fashion-savvy bloodsucker to do? Kristin Bauer van Straten chatted with Vulture about shoplifting, modesty pouches, and the Pam-Tara sex scene we didn't get to see.
From professional football players and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) allies such as Brendon Ayanbadejo to Chris Kluwe, acceptance and tolerance within professional sports is currently a hot topic. Now the European Gay and Lesbian Sport Federation (EGLSF) has found a new way to combat homophobia and transphobia outside of the field and locker room.
In addition to attempting to counteract homophobia and transphobia, the game also aims to combat racism and sexism.
It's free and currently exclusively available for Android users. The game can be downloaded from Google Play (formerly known as Android Market).
The application is a multi-level game where users test their dribbling skills while simultaneously being educated about discriminatory attitudes and behavior that is inappropriate in sports.
"Education has a huge part to play in tackling discrimination, hate speech and violence in sport," Andrej Pisl, the EGLSF development officer, is quoted by Gay Star News as saying. "We wanted to create an education tool that young people want to play first and foremost, that helps them understand that football should be for everyone."
As of late, there has been a few LGBT-friendly mobile applications to hit the market. On May 6, "RuPaul's Drag Race: Dragopolis" was released.