Madrid, Jun. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - A Spanish homosexual activist and Socialist parliamentarian, Pedro Zerolo, is demanding that Poland be expelled from the European Union if the nation passes legislation banning homosexual propaganda in public schools.

Arguing that every European Union should afford equal rights to homosexuals, Zerolo said that policy under discussion for Polish schools violates that principle. He concluded his statement by inviting Poland to leave the Union, saying, “There are the doors!”

These are some of the many letters and articles by youth which appear in Boys Speak Out on Man/Boy Love, published by NAMBLA in an enlarged, newly revised edition. You can order a copy of this publication (see "How to Order", below).

PREFACE David Miller

INTRODUCTION David Thorstad

 

Love & Loyalty

The Best Thing That Ever Happened to MeGreg, age 16

I Love Him, and I Know That He Loves Me Darrel, age 16

It Shouldn't Be a Crime to Make Love Bryan, age 12 1/2

Boys Help Men, Too "College Boy", age 19

I'm Not Going To Be Kept Away from Him (An Interview) Thijs, age 11

 

Friendship & Fun

He Listens to Me, Unlike Most People Robert, age 16

Sex Is Really Beautiful with My Friend Dennis, age 13

The Beach Luis Miguelito de Argentina, age 13

De la Boca Chiquito Luis Miguelito de Argentina, age 13

Such a Relationship Is Very Beneficial Dan, age 19

"Air Guitar" Anton, age 14

Man, What a Feeling! Eric, age 14

Because I Enjoy It (An Interview) Theo, age 13

 

Respect & Support

If It Wasn't for Mark I'd Probably Be Dead Today Carl, age 14

Loneliness Mark, age 13

He Makes Me Glad I'm Gay Ed, age 14

The Politics of Ageism Michael Alhonte, age 18

I've Learned So Much from Barend (An Interview) Gerrit, age 16

 

Consent

Thank God for Boy-LoversVictor, age 14

For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted Gabriel, age 16

Gay Consciousness

I Need My Lovers Tyrone, age 16

He Was Very Special and Kind Barry, age 17

Column No. 8 "The Unicorn", age 12

 

Body Politics

We Should Be Able to Have the Relationships We Want George, age 17

It Was Me Who Started It Frank, age 15

Column No. 1 "The Unicorn", age 11

Four Resolutions Second International Gay Youth Congress

Dutch Gay Youth Visits San Francisco (Interview) Bertram Hoffman, age 24

It's Adults Who Are Screwed Up about Sex (from Lesbian Gay Youth Magazine)

 

 

The Sex Police: Man/Boy Love and the Law

Moms and Teens File $200M Federal Suit against Police and Bronx D.A.s for

      Physical and Mental Abuse

Teens Charge Cops Threatened Them with Rape Bill Andriette

I Know What I Am: Gay Teenagers and the Law Joint Council for Gay Teenagers

"Victim" Joins NAMBLA (Interview) Harold Baker, age 16

There Were Bars on My Bedroom Window Jonah, age 12

eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays

Thu May 31, 2007 7:10PM EDT

By Jill Serjeant

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a "men seeking men" or "women seeking women" option.

They were seeking to make it a class action lawsuit on behalf of gays and lesbians excluded from the dating service.

eHarmony was founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.

It has more than 12 million registered users, and heavy television advertising has made it one of the nation's biggest Internet dating sites.

The company said the allegations of discrimination against gays were false and reckless.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.

"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," she said.

Carlson's lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

Carlson's lawyers expect a significant number of gays and lesbians to join the class action, which seeks to force eHarmony to end its policy as well as unspecified damages for those denied eHarmony services based on their sexual orientation.

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN3122132120070531

 Zanimljiv komentar ove vesti koji pokazuje apsurd do kojeg dovode gay aktivisti. Mozemo da se pitamo samo sta je sledece?

June 02, 2007

The Gay Lobby Takes on eHarmony

By Ross Kaminsky

A lawsuit filed by a Northern California lesbian against dating service eHarmony represents the types of excesses of the gay movement which do so much damage to their efforts to achieve public acceptance.

According to the Reuters article linked above, eHarmony "has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a 'men seeking men' or 'women seeking women' option."

Before getting down to more subtle arguments, let me say this: This lawsuit should be thrown out of court immediately, with the plaintiffs forced to pay any legal fees that eHarmony had incurred preparing for the case. But I fear it will not be.

eHarmony is a dating service founded by religious Christians who have done a lot of research on what makes heterosexual dating successful and likely to lead to marriage.

This means that a service for homosexuals is not only outside their area of expertise, but that it would be something they consider immoral.

To be clear, I am not a Christian nor I do not consider homosexuality to be immoral. I don't think there's any moral content at all in the sexual behavior of two consenting adults as long as nobody gets hurt and they're not breaking promises (such as marriage vows).

Despite what Big Nanny government wants to tell us, private people and private enterprise should have the right to discriminate. I might not like it if I am the recipient of such discrimination, but particularly when the refusal to provide service comes from a religious principle, it seems obvious to me that the more important right is the free exercise of one's religion.

Despite Big Nanny's views to the contrary, government has no role in forcing a company to provide a service to any particular person regardless of that company's reason for denying service other than in the case of a monopoly provider (like a utility company, for example) or in providing emergency health care or any other service where the result of not providing it would be serious injury or death.

I understand that many will think, "What about the South before the Civil Rights movement?" and it is indeed a valid question. My answer is this: Although segregation in private businesses was unconscionable, it was not unconstitutional. The same can not be said of offering public/government services, in which case there must not be discrimination. So, while I would have allowed a restaurant to be as ignorant, racist, and disgusting as they wanted to be, I would not have allowed a public bus to be segregated. Lofty goals do not make a policy correct or constitutional.

A few more sentences from the Reuters article:

According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.

"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," she said.

Carlson's lawyer Todd Schneider said the lawsuit was "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

Think about some of the "principles" being promulgated by the plaintiff and her attorney:

* Government should get involved in ordering a private business to serve particular people because the business not serving them is "hurtful and disappointing". I would laugh if it weren't actually fairly likely that the People's Republic of California might agree with her incredible intrusion on that business. It's as ridiculous as the lawsuit some years back aimed at getting a girl on to a boy's sports team. People, you do not have the right never to be offended.

* The fact that all people regardless of sexual preference have a "right to fall in love" means that any business which is involved in facilitating relationships must cater to everyone. Again, this is truly insane and an incredible intrusion into every aspect of the business. What if they believe they can't make as much money catering to a particular market? What if they don't want to serve a particular market because of moral objections? What if because of either or both of those beliefs they do not have the depth of understanding of the market who wants to be served that they have of their primary market? What if serving that market would cost them many current customers who would object? Any one of those reasons should be more than good enough for a company simply not to serve the market it doesn't want to serve.

Could you imagine the outcry from gays if someone tried to force a gay website to provide dating services for heterosexuals? Or a religious group that promotes heterosexual marriage demanding a float in a gay pride parade?

Should Victoria's Secret be forced to sell lingerie for gay men, whatever that might be?

People are different. Not every business wants to or is capable of serving every person, and whom a business chooses to serve is its private decision.

The biggest problem with gay activism is that they want to be treated as special or as victims when it suits them, and as "just like anybody else" when it suits them. Indeed that is the problem with activists of many stripes, not just based on sexual orientation. In my view, they are not special, and although they have occasionally been victims, they are primarily just like anybody else. And just like anybody else, they have to realize that not every business sells a product they want and that they do not have the right to force the business to cater to them.

My guess is that this suit stands a real chance of being decided for the plaintiff in lower courts because it is in California, and probably would be upheld in the extremely liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (unless there is some interesting jurisdictional aspect that might work in favor of eHarmony). I would expect it to be overturned (but just barely) if it gets to the Supreme Court. I hope that the founder of eHarmony fights this suit as far as possible. It deserves not only to be beaten back, but to be slapped down with the same antipathy which all such activists show toward the most fundamental rights of Americans in their private lives, including Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association, which I emphasize includes the right not to associate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/the_gay_lobby_takes_on_eharmon.html

Dutch shock over gay AIDS rape gang

A gay gang that allegedly raped victims lured on the Internet, drugged them and infected them with the AIDS virus has shocked the Netherlands and raised questions over its liberal sex culture.

Health Minister Ab Klink on Thursday called the case "horrible", as the press splashed the news across its front pages.

The matter came to light Wednesday, when police said they had arrested three seropositive homosexual men two weeks ago after four victims, men aged 25 to 50, accused them of rape and premeditated bodily harm.

Ronald Zwarter, the police chief in the northern town of Groningen, where the alleged crimes took place, said two of those arrested, a couple aged 48 and 33, had confessed.

"Their stated motive was that it excited them -- and also that, the more HIV-infected people there were, the better their chances of unprotected sex," he said.

"They considered unprotected relations to be 'pure'."

A fourth man who allegedly supplied the three suspects with several litres of the date-rape drug GHB and ecstasy tablets was also arrested.

The gang risks up to 16 years in prison.

According to police and prosecutors, eight more victims have come forward since the case was publicised.

Officials said the three seropositive men invited gays contacted on the Internet to private homosexual orgies.

When the victims turned up, they were allegedly given ecstasy and GBH (which is undetectable when mixed in drinks), leaving them helpless and, in some cases, with no memory of what happened.

The three suspects -- one of whom is a male nurse -- were said to have raped the men, and even injected some of them with a mix of their contaminated blood.

The case has deeply unsettled the Netherlands, and caused it to cast a hard look at its easygoing views on sex, with some figures suggesting that frequent homosexual orgies posed a public health risk.

"That homos organise orgies is nothing new, but this is something else. This is unimaginable," said Frank van Dalen, the president of a gay rights group called COC.

He stressed that the illegal use of GHB (gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid) -- known on the street by such nicknames as "Easy Lay, "Gay Home Boy" and "Liquid Ecstasy" -- also posed a danger in heterosexual circles.

Said Henk Krol, the editor of a homosexual magazine titled Gaykrant: "These people were drugged, it's therefore rape, pure and simple. It's shameful, disgusting and terrifying. Those who did this are crazy."

Health officials pointed to a recent rise in the number of HIV infections in Groningen -- from 14 in 2005 to 25 last year, out of the town's total population of 185,000 -- as significant.

"This doesn't mean that the rise is entirely explained by the orgies... but it's probable that part of the rise has been caused by them," Marco Ter Harmsel, of Grongingen's municipal health service, told the Dutch newspaper DRC.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.***?id=070531170047.loblqusq&show_article=1&image=large