posted on February 7, 2004 09:08:37 AM new
Oh my, you're going to be such a busy little beaver keeping up with all that. Just think, multiple IDs and you can go forever. Have fun!
posted on February 7, 2004 09:34:13 AM new
And one of them's "handing out the fight" Kiara! Sounds like it'll be Old Home Week (Old Homophobe Week? ) for you-know-who!
posted on February 7, 2004 08:21:35 PM new
Putrid is how dead soldiers smell after a couple days in the desert. But that is not a moral concern is it? Just business.
Republican Congress and the Democratic White House found a rare patch of political common ground on the cusp of the November election with enactment of the Defense of Marriage Act.
sident Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the first federal law to define marriage officially as a "union between one man and one womanhe legislation comes as the issue of same-sex marriage continues to be debated in many sectors of society, from the church to the corporate world.
er DOMA, a bill actively pushed by a coalition of pro-family groups led by the Family Research Council (FRC), homosexual couples would be denied spousal benefits from such federal programs as social security or Medicare. The law also holds that no state can be required to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned in another state
A pending Hawaii court case had pro-DOMA forces concerned that a ruling on the island could force other states to accept homosexual unions (ct, March 4, 1996, p. 64). Under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" provision, states are required to recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" from other states.
DEFENSIVE MEASURE: DOMA moved to a legislative fast track in the waning days of the Republican-controlled congressional session. measure passed the Senate in an 85-to-14 vote on September 10.
---------------
And whenever the dems finally have the candidate they *think* will be a challenge to this president...he'll be asked for his view on this issue. Obviously clinton was not for changing what the term 'marriage' has always stood for.
posted on February 8, 2004 04:30:52 AM new
Good Bear...
Linda, that is right and even President Clinton did not force the issue with the military, because he knew that the backlash would of been devastating.
DOMA was signed and in fact the Law, however a few liberal judges seem to think they can do whatever they like and I really do think the people of MA will get thier admendment approved and signed, however they must now go through that long process and put up with queers getting married.
It is funny how some of these fags seem to think this is even similar to civil rights of the 50's and 60's, good and decent blacks don't even support this.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 8, 2004 03:25:38 PM new
Opponents of Gay Marriage Rally in Boston
By THEO EMERY, Associated Press Writer
BOSTON - Hundreds of opponents of same-sex marriage gathered Sunday on Boston Common to show support for a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
People held banners that read "Let the people vote," "Marriage, ancient, sacred," and "Homosexuality is not normal" as they were entertained by live music.
Speakers lined up for the rally included some of the state's most high-profile gay marriage opponents, including Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of the Roman Catholic Boston Archdiocese, and state House Speaker Thomas Finneran.
Ed Zicko, 69, attended the rally with his friend, Maureen Cavanaugh, 59, both members of St. Patrick's Catholic church in Natick. He said he came to the rally because marriage is a tradition going back thousands of years and "I think people should have the opportunity to vote on it."
A smaller group of counter-protesters, some holding a banner that said "Shame on you Sean," in reference to O'Malley, stood behind the main stage.
Massachusetts' highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, ruled 4-3 in November that same-sex couples had a right under the state constitution to the benefits of marriage, and this past week it ruled by the same ratio that only marriage — not civil union — would satisfy its initial decision.
On Saturday, leaders of churches, synagogues and mosques around Massachusetts condemned the high court's ruling in a joint statement and urged a constitutional ban on such unions.
"All eyes are on Massachusetts; may they see our courage and resolve to safeguard the fundamental institution of marriage," the statement concluded.
Signers included O'Malley; the Rev. David M. Midwood, president of Vision New England, an organization of evangelical churches; the Islamic Council of New England, which has about 25 centers and mosques; the 80-church Black Ministerial Alliance; 100 Christian Orthodox churches; and two Jewish leaders.
A poll released Sunday by Merrimack College's Center for Public Opinion Research suggested that support for gay marriage may be slipping, and support for legalizing civil unions growing.
Of 501 adults interviewed by phone in late January and early February, 33 percent said the state should recognize gay marriages, compared to 37 percent in November. In the latest poll, 43 percent said the state should recognize civil unions, compared to 38 percent in November. The margin of error was 4.5 percentage points.
The full Massachusetts House and Senate will meet Wednesday for a joint constitutional convention to consider a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts.
If a majority of lawmakers vote in favor of the amendment twice, it would be put to the voters as a ballot referendum in 2006.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 8, 2004 03:57:52 PM new
Whistler Ski Resort in B.C. (which is just out of Vancouver) is promoting gay week and they have named it Altitude Twelve. Last evening on the news it showed a marriage between two gay men from Virginia.
posted on February 8, 2004 04:17:49 PM new
I can't answer that, Krafty, but I do know that the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced here in the States as a direct result of Canada's legalization of gay marriages, since the United States recognizes couples who are married in Canada.
Maybe some people care so much because their own lives are empty and they fill their time by trying to oversee the (happy) lives of others...
posted on February 8, 2004 04:25:25 PM new
In a way, Pat, I can understand. Many people are afraid of change in any shape and are quite content with a life that doesn't go anywhere. These are the same people that put their life savings in a retirement account at the bank at 2% interest. It's safe, but you never grow.
posted on February 8, 2004 04:49:03 PM newKiara, I'd like to understand how a same sex marriage affects someone else's life. Can anyone tell me?
It doesn't affect my life any but I will admit that I even questioned some of it to begin with. Perhaps people worry about society's values, tradition, moral issues and then there is the religious aspect to it all. I guess some think it's the decline of the world or something?
I've talked to a few elderly people and some of them are surprisingly more tolerant than younger ones.
posted on February 9, 2004 03:25:49 AM new
Clergy Fear They Are Next
Jan 28, 2004
Clergy from across the nation are deeply concerned that their religious freedom will be violated with the same "Edict" imposed upon the Marriage Commissioners of B.C. On behalf of Clergy nationwide Dr. Charles McVety, President of Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition calls for Prime Minister Paul Martin to fulfill his promise to protect the religious rights of those who perform marriages in Canada.
Dr. McVety has heard from Clergy across the country on this issue. "I have had numerous calls and visits from Pastors who are afraid they are next in line as the government invades the religious territory of marriage". The Director of the Evangelical Association seems to concur. Dr. Thomas stated "It is only a matter of time until the government decrees that others who perform marriages must Do them or quit".
Several Marriage Commissioners have expressed their dismay at the heavy-handed action of the B.C. Government. A private Marriage Commissioner who received this "Edict" states "I REFUSE to solemnize a relationship that counters my faith. I will have to resign because I can not afford to fight any battle."
Those who object have been stripped of their freedom of conscience and have lost their livelihood. Each Commissioner is paid $75 per marriage plus $.44 per km for travel expense. As of March 31st they will be forced to resign or in other words "fired" for their religious beliefs.
Dr. McVety believes that "the Government is sending the message to all those who perform marriages. If you do not abandon your religious convictions then you will not be permitted to solemnize marriages and in turn lose your position and livelihood".
For months Dr. McVety has been cautioning Clergy that the day will come when they will be forced to marry same sex couples or have their license to perform marriages seized. Dr. McVety calls on Prime Minister Paul Martin to be true to his word. In December Martin stated "I would look at it (the notwithstanding clause) if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right,".
The Catholic Civil Rights League Vice President, lawyer Phil Horgan says "For those who have been engaged in the debate over the role of the state and the exercise of religious and conscience rights, the demand of the B.C. Government is merely another step in a concerted effort to remove religious voices from public administration. The Canadian Government’s duty to accommodate religious rights get steam rolled in this brave new world."
Now the nation waits to see if the Prime Minister will act or vacillate until he obtains a majority government and then absolve responsibility.
For further information contact:
Dr. Charles McVety - Cell Phone 416.434.8261
President, Canada Christian College 50
Gervais Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M3C 1Z3
President, Canada Family Action Coalition
Email [email protected]
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 9, 2004 12:04:55 PM new
From the Chicago Tribune:
If the majority of Americans want to stop same-sex marriage from undermining the institution of marriage--as polls say they do--then maybe those many Americans themselves ought to start showing more respect for heterosexual marriage.
Too bad that so many don't. Judging by the last census figures, you might suspect that many Americans hold marriage in contempt. Since 1970, the marriage rate has dropped by about a third. The divorce rate has doubled and the number of cohabiting couples has zoomed. An astonishing third of all children are born out of wedlock. The way things are going, it's surprising that more people--straight or gay--aren't asking: Why even bother with marriage?
So last week's ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requiring that same-sex unions be granted the same marital status as heterosexual unions wasn't a dagger to the heart of marriage. It was just the latest wound to an already bleeding institution.
Marriage is in such bad shape that it's now a matter for the government, with President Bush proposing to spend $1.5 billion on developing marriage skills. Yes, it has come to that. Strengthening marriage is now defined as a "public health" issue.
And so it is, if we are speaking about the health of children. Whatever your moral or religious thoughts about marriage, you can't ignore the evidence that the decline of marriage has been bad for children. Emotional instability, substance abuse, poverty, mental illness and even suicide are among the risks.
But that should be an old story by now. Here I'll be told that gays should be allowed to marry to raise children because same-sex couples can raise children just as well as married men and women. I decline to accept that assertion. Yes, children are harmed in some traditional marriages because one or both spouses are abusive, poor, abandoned, unskilled or malevolent. That happens in same-sex marriages also. So let's stipulate to "everything else being equal" before we compare.
Yes, some studies conclude that there is no difference between children raised in same-sex or traditional marriages. But those studies are seriously flawed, and prove only that more scholarship is needed, according to analyses posted on the Web site of Marriage Watch, a service of the Marriage Law Project of the Catholic University of America in Washington. So while we're waiting for what might never happen, must we deny the power of our own reasoning and experience, standing by mute as four people on a court redefine a millennia-old institution? My reasoning and my experience tell me that we could not have raised our own children without the life-molding power of different sexual roles. A mother and a father are important for children, at various stages of their lives, precisely because they are a mother and a father, a man and a woman. Each sex brings something different, important and wonderful to the lives of their children.
Of course, to accept that argument, you have to accept the fact that the sexes are different. Some won't because their ideology won't let them. It also requires acknowledging that thousands of years of human experience got it right. That varied civilizations independently came to the same conclusion about the need for marriage and that's why it developed much the same across cultures. Such thinking these days is anathema when authoritarian judges cite "an evolving paradigm" as justification for fundamentally changing one of society's oldest building blocks. Yes, the judiciary sometimes must step in to protect the rights of the minority, but sometimes the judiciary, in its haste, must accept the possibility that the majority is right. So the best response to such a judicial coup is a proposed constitutional amendment that would make the will of the people clear: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
And to make the point that the intent is to strengthen marriage, and not to bash gays, we should do what the Ohio legislature just did: Pass legislation barring state agencies from giving benefits to domestic partners, gay or heterosexual.
A postscript: In the interest of civil debate on this emotional subject, we should agree: Homophobia is not a reason to oppose gay marriage, and a person defending traditional marriage no longer should be called a bigot.
Ah the sanctity of marriage:
"Judging by the last census figures, you might suspect that many Americans hold marriage in contempt. Since 1970, the marriage rate has dropped by about a third. The divorce rate has doubled and the number of cohabiting couples has zoomed. An astonishing third of all children are born out of wedlock."
posted on February 9, 2004 12:57:32 PM new
That's so true, Logansdad. It's a clear sign that the whole marriage thing has to be revised, imo.
Kiara, I understand about why a person would choose to be against gays (religion, tradition, etc.), but what I'd like to know, is HOW (in what ways), a decision made between 2 people, AFFECTS the anti-gay group... how does it affect YOUR life, Linda, Twelve, Colin, Bear, etc??? Not one has ever been able to answer me and I've asked many times, Kiara. You're the only one that's answered truthfully so far...
posted on February 9, 2004 01:43:55 PM new
Kraft:
"but what I'd like to know, is HOW (in what ways), a decision made between 2 people, AFFECTS the anti-gay group... how does it affect YOUR life, Linda, Twelve, Colin, Bear, etc???"
Any marraige should have no imapct on another family. If you got married today it would have no impact on my life what so ever. I wouldn't care whether or not you got married to woman or a man.
The anti-gay movement is just afraid the gay are trying to push their views onto the straight community.
The same sort of thing happened earlier in society with the "black movement" and the "woman's movement". If I remember correctly, everyone feared and end to slavery and segregation back then. It is only a matter of time before the straight sees the "gay rights movement" is no different than what has happened in history ie black rights movement and the woman's right movement.
posted on February 9, 2004 03:17:11 PM new
To even compares queers with the Black movement or Woman's movement is a slap in the face to everyone who supported them.
Queers are deviants not deserving of any kind of recognition, they should not be allowed any rights.
They deserve no more rights than a person who molests children, copulates with animals or the dead.
As an Employer if a law ever takes effect in my state where queers are to be treated as a couple, that will be the end of me being an employer.
Sole proprieter will be just fine...
However, seeing the backlash that is taking place in MA, I doubt I will see that happen in my life time...
I lower myself to address a statement copied by you logansdad...
1.- Healthcare
If you are so naive as to think that health care will not rise, insurance will not rise... that is your choice...
2 - Revenue... also now comes into play those people who will get "married" just to reap the benefits of taxe cuts and savings... nothing more than... not even queer will do it.
People who spout out "How does it affect you?" BS are the same ones who must not care that children are getting abused behind closed doors, women getting beat, men getting abused; after all those don't affect me either directly, I do find them repulsive; as repulsive as a queer.
Obviously I hold my fellow man to a higher standard than you and we can just leave it at that... I do think you will be seeing a new admendment and it will pass.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 9, 2004 05:01:32 PM new
Twelevepole,
To even compares queers with the Black movement or Woman's movement is a slap in the face to everyone who supported them.
How so? How is this different than the other two movements, all are about equality.
Queers are deviants not deserving of any kind of recognition, they should not be allowed any rights.
Then neither should child molesting priests, drug addicts, cheating politicians, prostitutes, tax cheats.
2 - Revenue... also now comes into play those people who will get "married" just to reap the benefits of taxe cuts and savings... nothing more than... not even queer will do it.
Then why do straight couples that do not have children get married. I thought the entire point of marriage was to procreate.
posted on February 9, 2004 05:10:39 PM new
Why do straight people get married... because MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN... is that so hard for you to understand?
Not between a couple of deviant queers....
Where do you people draw the line? Next people will becoming out wanting to marry thier damn sheep... is that ok with you?
People will want to marry their sons/daughters brothers/sisters..etc... that ok with you to?
Never answered my question... how is what anything that happens in someone's home my or your business... that includes child abuse, domestic violence, drug dealing... where? Where do you people draw the line?
I am so glad my line is drawn and doesn't shift depending on how I wake up in the morning... I think to the backlash from this will set queers back on their heels and some on thier asses...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
posted on February 9, 2004 05:14:05 PM new
Hey Tweleve,
As an Employer if a law ever takes effect in my state where queers are to be treated as a couple, that will be the end of me being an employer.
Sole proprieter will be just fine...
What is the name of your business? I will make sure I never send any business your way.
By the way how do you know you dont have any gay employees. Not every gay person is like Nathan Lane and Robin Williams in "The Birdcage"
Better yet, how do you your children don't have a gay teacher? How do you know you dont have a gay doctor? a gay lawyer? a gay neighbor?
How the do you know the soldiers you servered with weren't gay?
I bet if there was a line up of 10 people you would not be able to pick which ones are gay and which one are straight.
posted on February 9, 2004 05:36:13 PM new
You know the whole tone twelve and company has is just so familiar.
It was the same with integration. I remember....
They're monkeys not people.
Do you want them sitting in school behind your daughter?
They just do it like an animal anytime they want with no more idea of morals than a dog.
If I have to serve them I'll close my doors. My daddy would die to see me serve a table of N-----s.
If they can just come in my neighborhood anythime they please they'll be stealing everything is sight.
Why waste schooling on them? They can't really learn anything complex like a white man anyway.
The law says they are not my equal and it has been that way as long as we've been a country.
My preacher agrees Jesus for N-----s is silly.
God made them different and if you mix with them you are dragging the whole country down to their level.
You just can't hurt a N----r by hitting him in the head.
They are cursed - says so in the bible.
Just substitute a few slurs and the sound is the same. The hate is the same.
posted on February 9, 2004 05:38:33 PM new
Hey Tweleve,
Here is a list of some gay people in history. I bet some of the names will surprise you.
We already had a gay president and a gay Army General in the US.
What you going to do now, tweleve, denounce your citizenship????
A
Akhenaton (ruled 1375?-1358? B.C.E.), Egyptian pharoah
Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.E.), Macedonian ruler
Hans Christian Anderson, writer of children's fairy tales
Guillaume Apollinaire (1880-1918), French poet
Reinaldo Arenas (1943-1990), Cuban poet, novelist
Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938), Turkish ruler
Saint Augustine (354-430), priest, scholar, theologian
B
Basil II (c. 958-1025), Byzantine ruler
Sir Francis Bacon, writer
James Baldwin, writer (Go Tell it on the Mountian, Giovanni's Room)
Sir James M. Barrie, playwirght/novelist (Peter Pan)
Charles Baudelaire (1821-1867), French poet
Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827), German composer
Andy Bell, musician, lead singer of Erasure
Benedict IX (1020-1055), pope
Leonard Bernstein (1918-1991), U.S. composer, conductor
Dirk Bogarde (Dirk Niven van de Bogaerde, 1921- ), British actor
Sandro Botticelli (1444-1510), Italian artist
Boy George, musician (Culture Club)
Marlon Brando (1924- ), U.S. actor (predominately straight, but has written openly of his gay experiences)
Benjamin Britten, composer
Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475-1564), Italian artist
Lord Byron, poet
C
Julius Caesar (100?-44 B.C.E.), Roman ruler
Caligula (C.E. 12-41), Roman ruler
Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacéres (1753-1824), French lawmaker
Renaud Camus, French novelist
Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1569-1609), Italian artist
Catullus (Gaius Valerius Catullus, 87-54 B.C.E.), Latin poet
Richard Chamberlain, actor
Charles IX (1550-1574), French ruler
Charles XII (1682-1718), Swedish ruler
Charles XV (1826-1872), Swedish and Norwegian ruler
Frédéric Chopin (1810-1849), French composer born in Poland
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.E.), Roman statesman, orator, writer
Montgomery Clift, actor
Commodus (C.E. 161-192), Roman ruler
Jean Cocteau (1889-1963), French writer, artist, filmmaker
Roy Cohn (1927-1986), U.S. attorney
George Cukor (1899-1983), U.S. film director
D
Christian Dior (1905-1957)), French fashion designer
Donatello (Donato di Niccolo di Betto Bardo, 1386-1466), Italian sculptor
Albrecht Durer (1471-1528), German artist
Johann Ladislaus Dussek (1760-1812), Czech pianist and composer
E
Sergei Eisenstein (1898-1948), Russian film director
Brian Epstein, First manager for the Beatles
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), Dutch scholar and theologian
Magnus Eriksson (1316-1374), Swedish/Norwegian ruler
Euripides (480-406 B.C.E.), Athenian playwright
Rupert Everett, actor (Another Country; A Room with a View)
F
Gustave Flaubert (1821-1880), French writer
Michel Foucault (1926-1984), French philosopher and scholar
G
Vasco da Gama (1460-1524), Portuguese admiral, explorer
André Gide (1869-1951), French writer
Allen Ginsberg, poet
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), German writer and scientist
Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852), Russian writer
H
Hadrian (Publius Aelius Hadrian, C.E. 76-138), Roman ruler
Radclyffe Hall, writer (The Well of Loneliness)
Alexander Hamilton (1757?-1804), U.S. politician and political theorist
Dag Hammarskjold (1905-1961), Swedish diplomat, UN Secretary-General 1953-1961
Hannibal (247-182 B.C.E.), Cartagenian military leader
Bruce Hayes, Olympic swimmer
Vladimir Horowitz (1903-1989), Russian-born U.S. pianist
Baron Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), German scientist, explorer, geographer
I
J
Jahangir (1569-1627), Hindustani ruler
Elton John (1947- ), British singer
John XXII (1249-1334), pope
Holly Johnson, lead singer (Frankie goes to Hollywood)
K
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), British economist and Nobel Prizewiner
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1955), Danish philosopher, theologian
Billie Jean King, professional tennis champion
Amanullah Khan (ruled 1919-1929), Afghan ruler
Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov (1745-1813), Russian military leader
L
Jack London (1876-1916), U.S. writer
Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé (1621-1686), French military leader
Louis XIII (1601-1643), French ruler
Louis XVIII (1755-1824), French ruler
Paul Lynde (1926-1982), U.S. actor
M
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian statesman, philosopher
Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521), Portuguese-Spanish admiral, explorer
Klaus Mann (1906-1949), German writer and critic
Thomas Mann (1875-1955), German writer
Jean Marais (Jean Alfred Villain-Marais, 1913- ), French actor
Martial (Marcus Valerius Martialis, C.E. 43-104), Roman poet, orator
Johnny Mathis, musician
Sir Ian McKellen, actor, Gandalf v Pánovi prstenù
Stewart McKinney, U.S. Congressman
Jean Baptiste Poquelin Moliere (1622-1673), French playwright
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), French writer
Montezuma II (1480-1520), Aztec ruler
N
Dave Navaro, musician (Red Hot Chilli Peppers)
Nero (12-41), Roman ruler
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), British scientist
Vaslav Nijinsky (1890-1950), Russian ballet dancer
O
Otto I (C.E. 912-973), Roman ruler
Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso, 43 B.C.E.-C.E. 18), Roman poet
P
Pier Paolo Pasolini (1922-1975), Italian film director
Paul VI (1897-1978), pope
Richard W. Penniman ("Little Richard," 1937- ), U.S. singer, songwriter, pianist
Peter I (Peter the Great, 1672-1725), Russian tsar
Phidias (500-432 B.C.E.), Athenian sculptor
Philip II (382-336 B.C.E.), Macedonian ruler
Pablo Picasso (1881- 1973), Spanish painter and sculptor
Plato (427-347 B.C.E.), Athenian philosopher
Plautus (died about 184 B.C.E.), Latin playwright
Iggy Pop, musician
Marcel Proust (1871-1922) French Writer
Nikolai Mikhailovich Przhevalsky (1839-1888), Russian explorer and naturalist
Ptolemy IV ("Philopater," 222-205 B.C.E.), ancient Greek ruler
Ptolemy VI ("Philometor," 181-146 B.C.E.), ancient Greek ruler
R
Raphael (Raphael Santi, 1483-1520), Italian artist
Richard I ("The Lion Heart," 1157-1199), British ruler
Rainer Maria Rilke (1875-1926), Austrian poet
Arthur Rimbaud (1854-1891), French poet
Maximilien de Robespierre (1758-1794), French revolutionary
Ernst Röhm (1887-1934), German Nazi leader
Rudolf II (1552-1612), German-Bohemian-Hungarian ruler
RuPaul, entertainer
S
sheykh Sa'adi Shirazi (1213 - 1293) persian poet
Jose Sarria, first openly gay candidate for public office in U.S. history (San Francisco, 1961)
John Schlesinger, filmmaker
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher
Franz Schubert (1797-1828), German composer
William Shakespeare (1564-1616), British playwright, poet, actor
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), British poet
Siegfried and Roy, entertainers
Willi Smith (1948-1987), U.S. fashion designer
Socrates (469?-339 B.C.E.), Athenian philosopher
Sophocles (496?-406 B.C.E.), Athenian dramatist and soldier
Jimmy Somerville, musician (Bronski Beat)
Michael Stipe, (lead singer of R.E.M.)
Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971), Russian-born composer
Suleiman I (1494-1566), Turkish sultan
T
Torquato Tasso (1544-1595), Italian poet
Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893), Russian composer
Tiberius (42 B.C.E.-37 C.E.), Roman ruler
Pete Townsend, musician (The Who)
Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, C.E. 53?-117), Roman ruler
V
Rudolph Valentino (1895-1926), Italian-American actor
Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901), Italian composer
Paul Verlaine (1844-1896), French poet
Jules Verne (1828-1905), French writer
Gore Vidal (1925- ), U.S. writer
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), Italian artist, scientist, inventor
Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro, 70 B.C.-C.E. 19), Roman poet
W
Thomas Waddle 1938-1987 (founder Gay Games), U.S. physician, athlete
Richard Wagner (1813-1883), German composer
Andy Warhol (1930-1987) Euro-American Pop Artist
President George Washington 1732-1799
James Whale (1896-1957), U.S. filmmaker (Frankenstein)
Walt Whitman, poet (Leaves of Grass)
Oscar Wilde, playwright/novelist (The Portrait of Dorian Gray)
Tennessee Williams, playwright (The Glass Menagerie; A Streetcar Named Desire)
Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889-1851, Austrian philosopher
Y
Z
Yury Alexandrovich Zavadsky (1894-1977), Russian actor and director
posted on February 9, 2004 05:43:27 PM new
I don't know and it had better stay that.. as far as queer doctor, lawyer, etc...
In the military I am quite sure there were queers on my ships... they didn't advertise it and I can assure you of that... and the ones that did... well, accidents do happen...
plus there was none of this "don't ask don't tell BS, they were dishcharged plain and simple.
So everything is ok with you as long as it happens in their own home?
I see...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
