|
Written by President
|
|
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 |
Australian Federal Election 2010,
After 3 years of the Australian Labor Party,(ALP), Queer people should be feeling "Betrayed!" (SSO,29/2010) who inform
us that Senator Penny Wong stated that "she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a
women. I think there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we should respect!"
 Advice for Penny Wong?
The problem with the ALP while the parliamentary wing "might" understand the science of social change, the faceless men, the
factional warlords from the unions, who actually hire and fire in the ALP, ALWAYS put politics and power before community. Was Kevin Rudd only
allowed to change laws relating to finance and centrelink because he could demonstrate clear and significant savings for
Treasury?
As Ali Hogg in the SSO stated, "I think her saying it's about respecting cultural and religious historical views is
pretty offensive to the gay community". It does beg the question, without progressive social change would not Ms Wong
most likely not have the vote and be employed in a chinese laundry if it were not for society moving forward? As a woman and an Asian Senator Wong has benefitted
directly from the progressive change directly wrought from the sweat of people, who include those that identify as LBGTIQ, so is it not time
for her to demonstrate gratitude through a vote for the Australian Greens Marriage Equality Act?
Betrayed and Missing in Action are the terms that best describe the ALP's Gay and Lesbian Members of Parliament. It is a
bit cheeky that the likes of Wong and Pratt et al got the GLBTIQ vote by promising assistance with GLBTIQ marriage law reform. Fagmedia
understands that the Senate Hansard shows a huge number of "absenteeisms" when the Greens Law Reform was put to the
floor for a vote! Does this not amount to an abdication of responsibilities?
As for Julia's knife in the back to Kevin Rudd. There are many in the community who believe that Prime Ministers are
elected by the people and it is the people who should have been allowed to give their verdict on Mr Rudd at the ballot
box! Is this not an insult to our Australian Democracy? Ms Gillard would like to present her actions as moving forward but no amount of airbrush and spin can whitewash
over the faceless men's treachery.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by President
|
|
Wednesday, 28 July 2010 |
Circumcision and HIV transmission
By Carl Schutt
The decision for parents to circumcision is controversial to some, while others think it’s a no-brainer. Despite how much education is out there, how many times I have explained to parents-to-be about how unfair infant circumcision is, the majority decide to go through with allowing a doctor to take a blade to their newborn son’s penis. It saddens me that most people “don’t get it” and that they believe that it’s not that big of a deal.
There are the usual unreasonings parents choose to mutilate their perfect, new-born son’s penis: foreskin is unclean (soap?); they want them to be like their father (what if the kid has different colored eyes than the dad- eye transplant? Or is missing an arm- additional amputation?); they’ll be made fun of in the locker room (seriously people?). The laundry list of ignorance trails on. Now there’s a new coal to throw into the foreskin-hater’s fire that has a bit of ground to stand on: circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV.
Let’s break it down: the inside of foreskin is a mucous membrane, similar to the inside of the eyelid or the mouth. When a male is circumcised, the glands on the head of the penis callous over since they are no longer protected by the foreskin and become less porous. The foreskin also has a plethora of Langerhans cells that are considered target cells for HIV infection. So circumcision will drastically reduce the chances of contracting the virus for sexually active men.
Studies coming out of Africa claim that circumcision reduces the transmission to a heterosexual male 55-60% (FYI: did you know that 79% of statics are made up on the spot?) during penile-vaginal intercourse. It does not reduce the transmission of HIV to the female. There is little to no evidence suggesting that it reduces the transmission of male to male partners, mainly because the studies only focus on heterosexuals.
But Australia is not Africa.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
