Stating the Obvious
I was just reading a new article on Pink News about comedian and TV presenter Paul O’Grady possibly moving to ITV from Channel 4 due to issues about the budget for his show. I was not entirely surprised to see that the very first two words in this article were ‘openly gay.’
A link at the bottom of the page to an old article about Graham Norton possibly taking over O’Grady’s Channel 4 slot begins with the same two words ‘openly gay’.
A few days ago the same two words ‘openly gay’ opened the first paragraph of the report on the tragic death of singer Stephen Gately.
On the same day an article about Stephen Fry’s TV series Kingdom being axed began with the words ‘gay broadcaster’.
Two weeks ago, there was an
article about John Barrowman that spawned all kinds of criticisms
and comments. The headline of the article was ‘Gay Dr Who and
Torchwood Star…” And in the links below was another article about
John that opened with “Gay actor…”At this point let me quote John Barrowman in a Times article marking the anniversary of the Stonewall riots which makes the same point.
“If there’s one thing that annoys me it’s the media that calls me “gay” as a prefix to everything….”
See, even he’s noticed.
Looking further back in the Pink pages I came across further examples of this lazy journalism. These three were one after the other.
“Gay comedian Matt Lucas….”
“Openly gay fashion designer Tom Ford….”
“Gay illusionist Derren Brown….”
And then Graham Norton and John Barrowman popped up again, both still openly gay. As if we didn’t know that. If you took a poll in any high street and asked people to name two gay celebrities chances are those two would be mentioned. Nomad tribes deep in the Sahara who don’t even have a word for gay know that John Barrowman and Graham Norton are gay. Ok, I exaggerate. But you get the point. They’re gay. We don’t need to be told they are every time their names are mentioned in the press.
And it’s the same for the women.
“Lesbian rock icon Melissa Etheridge…”
“Bisexual singer Lady Gaga…”
“Bisexual actress Megan Fox….”
Has anyone ever seen an article that refers to “openly heterosexual actor Brad Pitt” or “completely straight singer, Beyonce” or “pathologically non-gay politician’s wife, Iris Robinson…”
Heterosexual people are not defined by their sexual preferences. Why are gay people?
Why, especially on a website specifically for the LGBT community, is it necessary to keep using phrases like ‘openly gay’ to describe the subjects of the article?
Even if the article is about the fact that the person is gay, such as the recent one about John Barrowman that we all had such fun with, ‘openly gay’ don’t need to be the first two words in the sentence. They don’t need to be in the title. The subject matter speaks for itself.
It is even less necessary when the article is nothing to do with the subject’s sexuality. Paul O’Grady is not moving to ITV because it is a more gay friendly channel. Graham Norton isn’t going to Channel 4 for that reason, either. Kingdom was axed because ITV has budget problems, not because Stephen Fry is gay. And Stephen Gately, bless his poor soul, didn’t die at the terribly young age of 33 because he was gay. The lazy journalism that pigeon-holes people so conveniently seemed all the more annoying in the articles that covered that tragedy.
If gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals are to have a truly equal place in society with everyone who doesn’t fit into one of those categories, then we all have to stop using easy labels, and it ought to start with the people who write the news, especially those who write the Pink News.
SA Government's Human Rights Disgrace 20081220
On the 18th December 2008 a declaration supporting the equal human rights of GLBTIQ people was read out at the UN General Assembly in New York. It affirms the principle of universality: that all human beings, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are entitled to equal dignity and respect. No-one should be subject to violence, harassment, discrimination or abuse, solely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It was finally signed and supported by 66 countries around the world. South Africa was NOT one of them.
Instead, South Africa chose to side with despotic disrespectors of human rights such as the Vatican and numerous Muslim theocracies who follow policies which victimize GLBTIQ people and condemn them to death by execution - as well as those blatantly homophobic and fascist African countries such as Uganda - who have taken to outlawing homosexuality and persecuting diversity and the diverse as criminals.
It is rather disconcerting that the only country in Africa to so far show support for equality and human rights for GLBTIQ chose to ignore calls by GLBTIQ groups and the weight of conscience applied by voices from around the civilized world - simply ignored the issue as if it never existed. In fact, aside from some mentions on exclusively non-heterosexual news websites, almost no mention of this event and the SA governments unpardonable lapse in judgment was made in the mainstream media.
It is an affront to South Africans with a clear understanding of issues surrounding equal civil rights in SA that the representatives of the SA Government could in a radio interview today attempt to transfer their complicity in this matter by pointing fingers at other countries and claiming that human rights activists should rather tackle "bigger issues" like the USA's Guatanamo Bay human rights violation allegations, than criticizing SA for "having principles". Such a brass faced statement should make fair minded South Africans wonder what exactly these "principles" are that were being referred to and whether they should start applying for a passport.
While this UN declaration carries no legally binding implications for the governments who ratified it, this choice to not support the international initiative simply adds to the repugnance of the SA government's emerging disdain for its own non-heterosexual citizens. Here they had an ideal opportunity to stand up for justice, equality and all the things that make SA a beacon of light in the dark mass of ignorance and unjust persecution on the continent and to speak as a voice of reason in the face of institutionalized bigotry and despotism. Instead they chose to stand with the human rights abusers and deliver a resounding slap in the face of not only every GLBTIQ citizen of South Africa - but to every GLBTIQ person in the world.
It is therefore a major concern to us which path South Africa will be following after the 2009 elections. Considering the homophobic utterences of Mr Zuma and his cronies, the concerns of GLBTIQ citizens in SA now seem validated, even compounded by this disgrace. The government of the day has therefore - very publicly - shown where its interests lie; and following this incident it certainly does not seem to share our interests as GLBTIQ citizens of South Africa.
We therefore urge all SA voters to ensure they vote according to their consciences in the coming 2009 General Election - and above all not to vote for parties who show no interest in GLBTIQ equality - (or to be precise, those who clearly ignore and even trivialize issues surrounding homophobia, hate crime, heterosexism and persecution) - but instead to vote for any other party who does. Contrary to popular belief there are still a few of those left in SA. - SA GLAAD 2008
Milk
Just finished watching Milk. It was a well written and a powerful film. Such great acting aswell. I hope it does well when it comes out here in the UK.
I recommend it.
Oh and to those who are in the UK and want to see it here is an online link for you xD
Here is the link, its in two parts
http://fundovideos.com/ViewAdDetails.aspx?bid=445
Hope it works!
In Support of Gay Men Kissing
This is the first man on man kiss I ever saw on TV. Yes, I know there have been others, but I don’t watch TV much. Anyway, it was certainly the first that ever came on at 7.30 on a Saturday evening and my first reaction was to fall off my chair in surprise and shout something incomprehensible about Mary Whitehouse spinning in her grave. Unfortunately, the spirit of Mary lives on in others!
First there are the basically ‘nice’, basically ‘decent’ people who, while not necessarily considering themselves homophobic, and certainly unlikely to vote for the BNP, nevertheless think “kind of”, “sort of”, “well, you know”, that it is a bit odd when they see men kiss each other, and broadly agree with him.
More men kissing!
And there is what seems a much smaller camp of people who have no problem with gays kissing whatsoever, who think the act of kissing, of one Human being pressing lips against the lips of another Human being is a beautiful expression of warmth, affection, love, passion, devotion. This group seems to be drowned out at the moment by the other two groups.
Happy, smiling, open display of affection. This would be
perfectly socially acceptable for a heterosexual
couple.
Remember the fuss about THIS ‘gay’ kiss!
Science fiction kissing! Captain Jack on Captain
John!
This picture upsets the little old ladies at my local church.
Now, I have noticed whenever the screensaver kicks in, that people will sit watching the pictures change every eleven seconds. When one of the pictures of John and Scott kissing comes up I have noticed their reactions. They vary from a twitch of the face, to a drawing back of the whole body, to a full recoil or exclamations of disgust. These friends of mine, incidentally, range from little old Irish Catholic ladies who I know from volunteering on a Saturday in church to young adults, male and female, who I worked with in another volunteer job during the summer.
The full recoil tended to be from the little old Irish Catholic ladies who were brought up in places where that sort of thing just didn’t happen and couldn’t quite believe what they were seeing. They had been happy looking at pictures of a good looking man who they thought had a lovely singing voice and seemed to be rather nice on whatever daytime TV programme they had seen him on recently. When the pictures of John with Scott popped up they said things like ‘oh, they look like brothers’. But the pictures of the two of them kissing left them stunned and confused.
Another straight man kissing a gay man – David Tennant snogs John
Barrowman at the 2009 Comic-Con San Diego.
I don’t think any of these people would think of themselves as homophobic. I don’t think even those young adults living in their rough council estates where unreconstructed views of the world are rife actually would beat up a gay couple if they saw them holding hands in the street. But they all displayed homophobic reactions to an eleven second exposure to two men kissing. This kind of ‘latent’ and what seems to me almost unintentional homophobia seems to be quite common among ordinary people who really don’t think of themselves as homophobic.
Two Oscar winners express themselves openly.
A soapy kiss on Coronation Street
Another soapy one on Eastenders.
Because it is.
So Go For It, Guys
Why seperate but equal is just not equal
Today the LGBT Network submitted its petition to the Scottish Parliament, calling for the Marriage (Scotland) Act of 1977[1] to be amended to allow two persons of the same sex to register a civil marriage and to register a religious marriage, where the particular faith institution allowed it. In short; to bring marriage equality to Scotland.
The Civil Partnership Act of 2004[2] was passed by Westminster for the whole of the UK. The Scottish Executive consented to Westminster legislating a Scottish section within the Act. When a Civil Partnership is registered, the law mandates that it is performed in a secular manner. Therefore gay people of faith whose religion may wish to celebrate their marriage are not allowed to have that done. Nor does the Act offer any provision for a ceremony to be held when the partnership is signed, as opposed to marriage where words have to be spoken as well as the register signed.
The Scottish Parliament was founded on the value of equality; that every citizen is entitled to the same rights as all others, and to be respected and protected by the government we elect. Although the Civil Partnership Act was and is groundbreaking, the status quo remains that there is one law for straight couples and another law for gay couples. The fact that they have equal status does not detract from the fact that they are separate and different.
If we truly believe in equality; if we actually want to live in a society where citizens are treated the same no matter what their sexuality, then allowing separate but equal to remain the law of the land simply cannot stand. The era of discrimination and segregation based on the colour of a persons’ skin began to be dismantled with the US Supreme Court ruling that “separate but equal is inherently unequal.”[3]
Yet more than 50 years later, we are still denied access to the basic institution of marriage in the UK. Instead we have been given something that although is considered equal under the law, is also considered separate. A gay couple that is legally married in Spain or South Africa has thier marriage changed to a civil partnership when they come to the UK. A Canadian couple went to the High Court in 2006, seeking to have their legally valid Canadian marriage recognised as such under UK law, just as heterosexual marriages are recognised no matter where they are performed in the world. Sir Mark Potter, the High Court Judge rejected their plea in Wilkinson v. Kitzinger[4]. In his judgement he stated how civil partnerships were indeed different from marriage, and that the government, in denying gay couples the right to marry, was engaging in a legitimate attempt to protect marriage and family life. He also effectively fined the couple £25,000 by making them pay the governments legal costs.
More recently in October 2008, Lord Bach, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice reaffirmed the British governments opposition to same sex marriage. He states that when the government passed the bill “we made a distinction in it and did not call single-sex partnerships marriage… it did not call those partnerships marriage, and that remains the Government’s policy.”[5]
That blatant inequality is incompatible with the values of the Scottish Parliament. It conflicts with the principles of Scottish law, and is contradictory to the inalienable rights of every citizen.
The definition of marriage is not static; it changes as our society does. For many centuries, marriage was a mere contract to better the position of one family or to remove rivalry with another. Our interpretation of what constitutes a relationship has progressed from a wife being considered little more than the property of her husband to a partnership of equals; and our society now stands at the point where it affords equal protection to couples regardless of gender. So what then are the reasons for allowing only marriage for straight couples and civil partnership for gay couples? If they are really the same, why are there two different laws and two different forms to fill in at the registrar’s office?
The word marriage evokes timeless values of love and commitment, and it radiates a clarity of status in society as well as a subtle collection of personal, social and spiritual meanings that two people are united in all aspects of their life. Marriage is the strongest word we have for a declaration of total love and commitment to one another; and to deny any person that opportunity is to deny the full measure of dignity and humanity that we are all endowed with.
Can our society not be one where two people decide what status is best for them? Straight couples who wish to get married already get the choice between having a religious or civil ceremony. But of course there are some straight couples who would balk at the thought of even entering into a civil marriage, and would perhaps prefer a civil partnership, free of some of the associations and imagery that marriage brings. Just as how there are gay couples, who embrace the concept of marriage, and wish to celebrate their love by entering into this ancient institution, be that as a civil ceremony or one conducted by a progressive religion.
By denying same sex couples the right to marry on the grounds that some religious groups are opposed to it, enshrines that particular religious dogma into law, and ignores the diversity of faith groups that exist who would willingly marry two people of the same sex. In terms of performing religious marriage, it must be up to that particular faith to decide who to marry, not any government or parliament. Our 21st century state must respect the pluralism of belief and the diversity of faith that exists in Britain.
This petition is but one small step in the road to full equality and participation in every aspect of society. As we have seen from the battles over same sex marriage in the United States, there are those who will spend all they can and will fight to the very last to prevent gay couples being married. This does not mean we should run from the fight. We should not be afraid of standing up for what we believe in just because someone else is preparing to knock us down. And we should never be willing to compromise on our fundamental values, on our basic human rights or on our belief in the morality of equality.
This makes it incumbent on all of us who wish to live in a more equal world that we do not let someone else fight for a right we wish to enjoy. This is not the LGBT Networks campaign for marriage equality, this is simply a petition we thought was a good idea.
The campaign must come from all of us; from the group of friends who debate amongst themselves whether they would really be happy with a civil partnership; from the young person who isn’t happy to accept she is growing up in a country that wont afford her the same rights enjoyed by others; and from the happy couple who go down to the registry office, and instead of asking for civil partnership documents, demand that they be allowed to marry.
Some will say that there are more important things to do, and in some ways that’s true. But we can do more than one thing at a time. Putting your name to a petition or starting a conversation doesn’t detract from anything else that needs done.
But change doesn’t just happen. If we want it, we have to act like it. We have to stand up to those that say marriage should only be for straight people, or that civil partnerships are enough for us or don’t rock the boat to much in case some people don’t agree. Of course there are going to be people who are against this, but we should never shrink from the fight just because we might get hit.
In 2009, the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, I think about those courageous individuals who fought hand to hand with the police, to assert their right to exist, to be themselves openly and to be with the people they love, free from intimidation and harassment. Their legacy is not the laws that favour us, but our desire, our passion, and our right to be equal.
Nick Henderson
Director,
LGBT Network
9/1/09
[1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1977/cukpga_19770015_en_1
[2] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040033_en_1.htm
[3] http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/timeline.html
[4] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2006/2022.html
[5] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81023-0001.htm
Rome. Gay Pride or Runaway Bride?
If
homosexuals go to Rome, Rome goes crazy. Everything is ready for
the Gay Pride in Rome. The traditional LGBT procession in the
Holy City and Italian Capitol is in a few days. But if you have a
look at what is going on in the event organization you realize
that only the time is set.
The 13th of June will be the day, but the place remains a big
problem. Controversy, “polemica “in Italian comes from the Greek
for war, seems to be the key word.
Where is the procession going to go? Where is it going to start
from? Nobody knows but everybody demands something. From one side
we have the cultural LGBT organization Mario Mieli that would
like to end the procession in San Giovanni square, but it is not
possible. “A matter of protocol” according to the mayor Giovanni
Alemanno, “ a question of freedom” for the LGBT associations.
[more]
Two trans women
FRAR
My hart gos out to moTyli’a 'NaNa Boo' Macks mother
Beverlyn
And to all the parents of transsexuals that have been KILLED.
WHY,,,,,, WHY have we been shot, stabbed, bludgeon, bunt ,drowned, beaten to death with baseball bats or anything these men can lay there hands on..
Going back to the man,,, issue ,,,,well not even men these,,,, do not even deserve to be called men ,,, they are just ,,,,, they have no category, and they should not have one they are just,,, evil….
What have we ever done to them, to deserve this much hatred? Nothing that is what we have done.
We live our life’s,, well we try to live them,
We life in fear,
Fear that we will be picked in the street and called vile names, like pervert nonce freaks,, we are not
Fear that we will be called Mr. or sir, laughed at in shops when we go shopping
Or just hold the line while I look at your account, and just before you are put on hold you hear them laughing
Fear when walking down a road and a group of teenagers start calling you vile names
Spiting at you, throwing things at you,
Fear when we are in our own homes and our houses get stoned or what ever they can throw at your windows , putting things through a letter box like petrol and a match(I do not have a letter box for this reason ) burning down your shed in the garden (I have had this done 2 times)
Fear that when you are out in your car and some yobs smash it up,( I was still in my car when this happened .)
Fear that when you answer your door that some yobs are there to mock you and throw stuff at you, (I now have a doorbell camera so I can see who is at my door be for I open it )
Fear that when yobs are outside your house throwing bricks at it and saying that they will brake in to my house rape me and then burn the house down with me in it. (I have had this said to me)
Fear when Iam walking down the street and I hear footsteps behind me.
I live in fear.
Some people ask WHY live this way, why not go back to being a man
When will that lot get it there heads WE ARE NOT MEN
What man would do this the themselves?????? None
When I have had to call the police out a few times,
And when the local beat bobby calls to get a statement, and I tell him what happened, he asks about my feelings about the whole thing. The first couple times he asked me how I felt about the incidents I told him that I was hurt in side.
The time he came out when they were shouting that they were going to rape me and burn me, he asked me how did it make me feel, I broke down and cried saying that I was scared, freighted, some times I would stay in and not go out .
Paranoid, I am for ever checking that my doors and windows are locked and the keys are not in the doors, sleeping on the sofa and with every little noise I am up checking, if I am going out my front door and I hear voices in the street like kids I go back in to my house and wait till they are gone. This is no way to live. How do I feel sick to my stomach, that in this day age we hurt people because they are different?
When I walk out of my house to go anywhere, even up to my corner shop I have a pepper spray in my hand, when I shop in town and iam walking round the shops I have my pepper spray in my hands.
And if ( touch wood I hope it never happens) I was attacked and I used my pepper spray, it would be me in the dock and not the yobs that kicked shit out of me or if I was killed I would still be one who was in the wrong
WHY DO WE HAVE TO LIVE IN FEAR WHEN WILL ALL THIS HATRED STOP
rememberourdead.com
Elton and David not married according to Ukraine
The man said of the baby: “He has stolen my heart.” But Elton John will not be taking 14 month old Lev home; instead, the baby will remain in a Ukrainian orphanage for children affected by HIV/Aids. Without parents, without aunties and uncles, or his own bedroom in a loving family home.
Many believe that what Elton has sought to do, and what Madonna and Angelina Jolie have both done; taking children from disadvantaged countries to lives of untold luxury, is wrong. These mega-millionaires, billionaires even, should instead invest their time and money improving the lot of as many children in these poor countries as they can; by building new and better orphanages, providing access to medical care, clean water and healthy food.
Perhaps singling one child out for a life of opportunity whilst leaving others in a state of despair is utterly outrageous, perhaps it is a noble and loving act of giving love and a family to someone who would otherwise have none.
But these are not the things the Ukrainian Government considered when it rejected Elton Johns’ proposed adoption of little Lev. It is because, as Minister Yuriy Pavlenko has said, the mega star is too old and not married. The age gap is certainly wide. Elton is 62, much more than the 45 years the Ukrainian Government says is the maximum age difference for adoptive parents. However his civil partner, David Furnish, at 46 would be within the age limit, and it could be argued in any court or to an adoption official that the wealth and opportunity that Elton John and his partner could offer an adopted child would far outweigh the possibly reduced length of time that Elton John would have with the child due to his age.
The fact that the Ukrainian Government has rejected Elton John because he is not married is worrying, but true. However it can hardly be the fault of Ukraine, a generally conservative Eastern European nation heading into what will be a turbulent election period, to refuse to recognise a civil partnership between a gay couple as the same as marriage. Yes it shows the Ukrainian Government has having an unenlightened view on gay rights, but no one could reasonably expect anything else from this badly divided nation struggling to pull free of its Communist past and menacing Russian neighbour.
This instead exposes a fundamental flaw in the very concept of the British civil partnership scheme. Whenever UK citizens ask their Governments about the full right to marry their same sex partner, the responses that have been received from both Scottish and UK Governments, and in fact from Stonewall UK has been thus: ‘civil partnerships are fine, you get practically the same rights as married couples, you can even get dressed up and have a ceremony down at registry office, so stop bothering us and don’t push your luck.’
Although many people who believe in same sex marriage view this argument as deeply offensive and plain discrimination, it isn’t technically wrong. We DO get virtually the same rights as married couples, which is good, but without a doubt we need to go further and have full marriage equality across the UK. This aside, we then encounter the problem of international recognition of UK same sex couples. Whereas a married same sex couple can move from Canada to Belgium to Spain to Iowa and still be married, the minute they step onto British shores they are relegated to civil partnership status. Therefore when a British ‘civilly partnered’ (what is the actual verb?) couple moves to a jurisdiction that has taken the bold step to allow same sex marriage, it leaves the British couple in a legal limbo, it may even force them to have ANOTHER ceremony to ensure they get the rights they are entitled to as a couple.
The fact is that civil partnership is not a marriage, the British Government never wanted it to be classed as marriage, but our culture has somewhat embraced this as our own British style of same sex marriage, without the protests and court cases, and of course without the name or ancient traditions. So when Elton and David had their civil partnership ceremony, the media celebrated this as a ‘marriage’. Sometimes with inverted commas and a hint of tongue in cheek; other times genuinely inferring that they considered the partnership to as good as a wedding and refered to it as such. This widespread embracing of civil partnerships by society as ‘gay marriage’ has perhaps contributed to the apathetic feeling to real same sex marriage in the UK.
But the case of Elton John proves that for all the similarities, it allows all those who have well entrenched disdain for gay partnerships and the LGBT community to easily sneer at these ‘pretend weddings’ and ‘so called marriages’, and continue to view and treat same sex couples and LGBT people as less then equals, as different from ‘normal’ society and therefore deny them the right to family, security and full citizenship.
The reason same sex marriage is so contentious and civil partnerships, civil unions and domestic partnerships are by comparison not is partly because same sex marriage forces those with less than inclusive views to confront their prejudices and stereotypes. When they have to consider these people they dislike as equals, it puts them on the defensive. In the same way the male elite opposed votes for women, segregationists fought against sharing schools with African-Americans, and racists today claim President Obama is trying to destroy the American way of life; to accept that someone has the same rights as you have, to vote, go to school or become President, is to invariably accept them as the same as you.
Had Elton and David been legally allowed a real marriage, whether they would have wanted it or not, would perhaps not have let them give 14 month old Lev a new life, but it would have forced Ukrainian Government officials to consider the fact Britain believes two husbands can do just as good a job raising a child as can a husband and wife. You don’t change people’s minds by playing to their preconceived beliefs, you do it by forcing them to confront the prejudices they hold. That is why same sex marriage is so important, not just as a matter of equality, but as a way of proving to those who hide behind stereotypes that two wives or two husbands can do just as good a job as loving each other, raising children and contributing to society as anyone else.
What goes around comes around
Check it out peeps. My first blog!
Well if I'm going to rant, it
might as well be to a crowd that don't actually like me in the
first place. Mind you, I think this particular case in point
might ring a nerve or strike a bell.
Less than a month ago, PN reported "Indonesian
province introduces severe penalties for homosexuality" - I
move that had even the staunchest homophobes maybe wondering if
some people just take things a bit too far. "OK, he shags men.
Stone the dirty sod." Seems a bit extreme even for the
BNP.
Well, those that know me will know I am about as unspiritual a person as you are ever likely to find. However, I think there are good lessons to be learned in the Bible, and probably other religious tomes as well, but I really can't be arsed to read. Unfortunately, all these honest and decent messages get confused and mangled amongst all the other theological mumbo-jumbo and personal opinions of ficticious dieties. Shame really.
Anyway, as Ronnie Corbett would
say, "I digress..."
My point is, less than a month after these heathen morons deemed
being gay worthy of being pelted with rocks until the person is
reduced to a bloody pulp on the pavement, they are now asking for
help:
Indonesia awaits world quake aid
I'm not sure which religion expouses Karma, (I think it's Hindu), but I think they might know something us athiests don't, because next time some tin-rattling do-gooder comes up to you in the street asking for a donation towards the Indonesian earthquake, why not hand them a nice bit of granite, or maybe some Portland stone?
Welcome to my.PinkNews.co.uk
We're expanding an changing, reacting to the wishes of our
readers. In our recent insight survey of the subscribers of our
newsletter, many wanted to be able to interact more with us and
each other. In response, we have developed my.pinknews.co.uk- a
new social network platform. Beyond all of the normal features of
any social networking site such as profiles, walls and messages,
we're also handing control over to you.
For the first time, readers can write their own news stories and
share their experiences of life in the LGBT to the wider world.
Community groups can upload press releases directly ensuring that
their message is seen by all. There will be a feed of the latest
articles on the main website and some stories will be
re-published and shared with the thousands who read our
email newsletter every day.
It's an experiment, so excuse any bugs but let us know of any
feedback you have.
Top Authors
Subscribe
