YAY hot emo guy in town I like he might like me i must find more out but yeah hes hot bi and hopefully it works out

I've just come back from seeing Bruno at the cinema and I have to share the fact that it was definately THE most hilarious thing I have seen in absolutely ages!!! My housemate cannot get a single word of sense out of me, just hysterical laughter as he's asking me how the film was and what the good bits were (most of them actually!!)
Definately NOT a film to go to see with any relative or anyone with whom you intend to retain any sense of decorum, gratuitous sex, genetalia and dildo's all featured quite heavily but the whole cinema came out loving it.

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[img2=left]http://www.gayspeak.com/forum/images/news/gaykisscomic.jpg[/img2]An X-Men-related comic book is the first mainstream title to feature a gay kiss.

X-Factor's 45th issue shows characters Rictor and the previously-possessed Shatterstar sharing a kiss after years of sexual tension and ambiguity.

The title was written by Peter David, who won a GLAAD award in 1999 for his work on Supergirl and Madrox, both of which explored gay and bisexual issues.

Writing on his blog, David thanked readers who praised his courage for introducing same-sex romance in his work.

He said: "Thank you. And no, it’s not a fake out. A number of people seem to be concerned that Star is still under Cortex’s control. Or that Rictor is going to freak out the next panel and say, 'Dude, what the hell?'

"That would be cheap. I don’t do cheap. Okay, sometimes I do, but not this time. I’m not interested in having people say, 'Peter David introduced this and then chickened out'."

[img2=left]http://www.gayspeak.com/forum/images/news/barackobama.jpg[/img2]A law allowing the recognition of gay marriages performed in other states came into effect in Washington DC on Tuesday.

It means that same-sex couples in the district who married in the handful of US states which do allow the practice can now receive more than 200 rights, benefits, and obligations associated with marriage under DC law.

The law came into effect at 12.01am today, when a 30-day Congressional review ended.

It will recognise gay marriages that are conducted within Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Gay marriages have been banned in California following the voter initiated Proposition 8 during the Presidential election.

However, as with states in which gay marriage is legal, couples will not be able to enjoy many of the 1,100 federal rights and benefits given to straight married couples, due to the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Enacted in 1996, DOMA allows states to reject gay marriages performed in other states and bars gay couples from accessing federal benefits.

In June, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum to extend federal benefits for partners to same-sex couples but critics have said the move will not be permanent, won't include healthcare and will not be applied to those serving in the military.

[img2=left]http://www.gayspeak.com/forum/images/news/lesbianholdinghands.jpg[/img2]A lesbian couple who were harassed by colleagues over their sexuality have won £22,000 in compensation.

Beth Moules and Sharleen Amos, who both worked as saleswomen at Soundwell-based firm Aquatech Rainsoft, told an employment tribunal in Bristol they had been ridiculed and humiliated by comments from colleagues over their relationship.

Yesterday, they were awarded more than £22,000.

Moules won £7,142.30 for unfair dismissal, while Amos was awarded £5,000 for unfair dismissal in line with an out-of-court settlement.

Each woman also won £5,000 for hurt feelings for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

They alleged that one colleague, Peter Thoburn, had told staff they had performed a threesome with sales manager Stephen Rosenthal, adding he was "the meat sandwich between them".

It was also claimed that Mr Thoburn had said to another colleague: "I don't know how they can do it … it's disgusting, I don't agree with it."

The tribunal heard that the couple's boss, Stephen Baker-Joy, had told them to stop complaining because "lesbians had never and would never suffer in the way that Jews had".

Days after they complained, Amos was fired and Moules resigned, claiming constructive dismissal. They have since split up.

The smiling, homophobic Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester has been at it again. On the day of London Pride he called on gay people to repent when he said, "We welcome homosexuals, we don’t want to exclude people, but we want them to repent and be changed."

Sorry, Bish, but I only see the need to apologise when I've done something wrong.

What I don't understand is why homosexual liaisons and relationships are seen as a legitimate target for attack. The good bishop might get closer to a real issue were he to tackle all whose selfish and destructive behaviour is contributing to an unravelling of fairness and decency in society. I would maintain that society would be better off if the massively easy target of gays were not scapegoated for so many ills. If the path to building loving, stable relationships were a little smoother for all maybe the Bishop would not have cause to speak out. I guess this attack by the Bishop is like a hobby. In his day job he speaks out against "Canadian-style" multiculturalism and calls for Muslims to integrate more fully into British society. His outspokenness on this and similar issues has earned him police protection from the Kent force. Now there's an issue that is important :frown:

I've just been reading that Jordan Chandler, came forward and admitted that he made the whole story up!

Supposily he only did it because his dad told him to.

It was in a few papers, and you can find the story on google

Anyone like to say sorry to the king of pop?!??!?!

Damn I'm mad ... again! :mad:

The General Teaching Council for England is the professional body charged with setting standards of conduct for teachers in England. In effect it's a kind of watered-down General Medical Council. All teachers have to pay their thirty-odd quid a year if they want to continue to be registered as a teacher and keep their jobs.

Principle 4 of the code has hitherto required that teachers ‘proactively challenge discrimination’ and ‘promote equality and value diversity in all their professional relationships and interactions’ before they can be registered.

It seems that after complaints from hundreds of the religiously afflicted (the claw of the Christian Institute at work again) the GTC has caved in to demands to water down the standards relating to fairness and equality.

No longer will teachers be required to promote equality and diversity proactively. They'll simply have to "demonstrate respect" for it. There is a difference; in my view it is a big difference. In practice it means that teachers will not actually be required to do much in the way of positive intervention to tackle homophobia and transphobia if they don't feel like it. It means that their good Christian consciences will be untainted when it comes to avoiding dealing with homophobic incidents. It also (I suspect - though I've not seen it in print) means that the GTC will not be required to tackle directly homophobia in Islamic schools. I can just hear all those civil servants breathing huge sigh of relief. They've just avoided having to face a fatwa.

The spineless GTC, backing down to the god-botherers' bullying, is a retrograde step, specially given all the recent strides we've made towards fair treatment. There is evidence that students and teachers in "faith" schools already suffer more homophobic attention than in non-alligned schools. This is just going to lay our community open to more bullying.

Be on your guard people. See how easily our hard-won successes are still so fragile.

more

[img2=left]http://www.gayspeak.com/forum/images/news/barackobama.jpg[/img2]US president Barack Obama has addressed accusations he has been slow to keep his promises on gay rights.

Speaking to 300 LGBT activists at a White House reception on Monday, he said: "I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps."

The president promised in his election campaign to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', which bans openly gay people from serving in the military, and the Defence of Marriage Act.

Gay rights activists have criticised what they see as slow progress, saying a recent concession to give equal benefits to gay partners of federal employees won't include healthcare, will not be permanent and will not apply to those in the military.

Obama said: "We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.

"I know that many in this room don't believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that.

"It's not for me to tell you to be patient anymore than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half-century ago."

"But I say this: we have made progress."

His speech was briefly interrupted by a reporter's mobile phone which rather embarrassingly made the sound of a quacking duck.

As Michelle Obama giggled and the reporter scrambled to switch off his phone, Obama said: "Whose duck is back there? There's a duck quacking in there somewhere."

"Where do you guys get these ringtones by the way?" he asked. "I'm just curious."

[img2=left]http://www.gayspeak.com/forum/images/news/indianflag.jpg[/img2]The Delhi High Court today ruled that a ban on gay sex between adults violates India's constitution.

Section 377 was enacted in 1860 under the British Raj, in line with the anti-sodomy laws in England at the time.

It punishes anyone who "voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal" by imprisonment and criminalises a whole range of sexual acts from mutual masturbation, to fellatio and anal sex.

Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidahr said the ban violated fundamental human rights.

The ruling said: "In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21. Section 377 IPC denies a person's dignity and criminalises his or her core identity solely on account of his or her sexuality and thus violates Article 21 of the Constitution. As it stands, Section 377 IPC denies a gay person a right to full personhood which is implicit in notion of life under Article 21 of the Constitution."

The decision was made in response to a case filed by Naz Foundation India. The ruling can still be opposed by the government.

The health ministry has called for the ban to be scrapped, saying it hampered efforts to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS in the country. However, the home ministry opposed the move, saying that gay sex is the product of "a perverse mind".

Human Rights Watch has welcomed the decision. LGBT director Scott Long said: "This legal remnant of British colonialism has been used to deprive people of their basic rights for too long. This long-awaited decision testifies to the reach of democracy and rights in India."