OK, so we've finally got a bit of equality. It seems that the Bush administration isn't just bashing homosexuals, they're bashing unmarried heterosexual couples and divorced people now, too.
Prince Charles' longtime lover, Camilla Parker Bowles has been banned from the White House because she is a divorcee.
A London newspaper (the Sunday Sun) reported that the Royal Family was notified of the ban, but that the notification did not contain references to Charles' divorce from Princess Diana several years ago.
Citing an official source of the British government, the Sun reported that Charles and Camilla's trip to the US will likely be canceled in light of these new developments.
This must be part of some new foreign policy meant to aid in mending the strained relations with European leaders....
Edited to add:
Other than the Sunday Sun and the Daily Mirror (both UK tabloid like newspapers), I've been unable to corroborate this report. Sent an email to the editors at 365gay.com, asking them for a link to their source or anything which corroborates the report other than the British rags, telling them I could find absolutely nothing in the Sun. I saw that they'd changed their story around a little bit, and no longer quoted the Sun as the sole source, but instead quoted "...the Sun and the Daily Mirror..." as having carried the news article.
Seems to me that, if there was anything to this story, mainstream media would be having a feeding frenzy over this, but I've heard and seen nothing more than this 365gay.com article, with a supporting article from the London Daily Mirror.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Sunday, February 20, 2005
ROFL!
Had to share this.
I go to a web site where there's a lot of debate over gay marriage -- lots of really ignorant comments made, but always some very witty comebacks (that make a lot of sense, too).
So, the progression went something like this:
The question was asked, if we let gays marry, then why not let men marry monkeys or grandmothers marry their grandsons, etc. I'm sure you've heard them all before. So, the standard replies of "informed consent" and "consent to a contract" are made, but then the original poster claims that homosexuality is not about love, it's about sex. Someone else jumps in with how, if a homosexual truly loves their partner, they wouldn't ask them to "sin" by continuing the relationship. Someone pops in with the comment that homosexuality is biological, not spiritual, and so the question is asked "If it's biological, and there was a test for it, would you support abortion of the fetus if it was determined that the fetus would be homosexual?"
The reply, simply stated, was that "I'm thinking though, if they could detect homosexuality before birth, that suddenly abortion would become a sacrament to the Christian right."
I go to a web site where there's a lot of debate over gay marriage -- lots of really ignorant comments made, but always some very witty comebacks (that make a lot of sense, too).
So, the progression went something like this:
The question was asked, if we let gays marry, then why not let men marry monkeys or grandmothers marry their grandsons, etc. I'm sure you've heard them all before. So, the standard replies of "informed consent" and "consent to a contract" are made, but then the original poster claims that homosexuality is not about love, it's about sex. Someone else jumps in with how, if a homosexual truly loves their partner, they wouldn't ask them to "sin" by continuing the relationship. Someone pops in with the comment that homosexuality is biological, not spiritual, and so the question is asked "If it's biological, and there was a test for it, would you support abortion of the fetus if it was determined that the fetus would be homosexual?"
The reply, simply stated, was that "I'm thinking though, if they could detect homosexuality before birth, that suddenly abortion would become a sacrament to the Christian right."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)