'The Internet is a great vehicle for like-minded people to get together, whether it's to collect trading cards or do crystal meth. If it's not a dating Website like Manhunt, it could be a bulletin board like Craigslist or it could be something new that hasn't been created yet. But there's no going back.' — Stephan Adelson, general manager of the 300,000-member gay-hookup Web site Manhunt.net, to New York Magazine, Feb. 28.
'I am really sick of people who, out of ignorance or stupidity or fear, criticize Larry [ Kramer ] for being a loose cannon. Do I agree with everything he has said? No. So what? Does he sometimes rant? Fortunately, yes. Right after the election, he gave a speech at New York's Cooper Union, and 900 people showed up; about 400 more were turned away. He talked about the loss of gay rights and the realization things are going to get worse, about how we were murdering each other by having unsafe sex, and about the self-indulgence of crystal meth use. Although I believe addiction is more complicated than that, there is no doubt that it is destroying our community with the same fervor as any virus. When Larry rants, we need to listen.' — AIDS activist Gary Barton writing in The Advocate, March 1.
' [ O ] ne of [ Abraham ] Lincoln's first major crushes, Billy Greene, remarked that Abe's 'thighs were as perfect as a human being Could be.' In the 19th century, having sex by humping another man's thighs was a simple and hygienic form of copulation. We know that Greene and Lincoln slept together in a cot-bed so tight, according to Greene, that 'when one turned over the other had to do likewise.'' — Andrew Sullivan writing in The Advocate, March 1.
'I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law. Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation or sections of legal text—more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be. This bill protects minority rights. [ As ] public legislators, we are responsible for serving all Canadians and protecting the rights of all Canadians. ... The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority. We embrace freedom and equality in theory, Mr. Speaker. We must also embrace them in fact. [ S ] ome have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to 'civil union.' This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians. ... ' [ S ] eparate but equal' is not equal.' — Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin addressing Parliament Feb. 16 as it began consideration of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide. Courts already have legalized same-sex marriage in eight of Canada's 13 provinces and territories. The bill is expected to pass this spring.
'But back then, we lost so many people to AIDS, and there was nothing you could do about it. I didn't want HIV, but I wanted to know what they had gone through. ... Who knows where we got it? The number of blow jobs I've given in club toilets!' — Erasure singer Andy Bell on his HIV-positive status, to POZ magazine. He was talking about when he once told the New York Post he wanted to be positive.
From The Economist internatioanl Magazine Press office:
'In the armies of ancient Greece, homosexuals were prized as soldiers, though sent to fight in separate units. In Britain, there is no such distinction and gays serve openly without discrimination. But in America, self-declared gay warriors are not allowed. Says this week's Economist, this discrimination is wrong. Three reasons are usually offered for banning self-confessed gays:
'Gay soldiers undermine teamwork and morale: on the battlefield where soldiers are meant to fight for the love of their 'band of brothers', soldiers would be wary of loving their gay comrades in this way.
'Allowing gays to serve openly could be bad for recruitment: the extra homosexuals would be outnumbered by homophobic Americans thus deterred.
'Armies with gay soldiers would inaccurately reflect the mores of society: America is unwilling to allow its heroes to be gay.
'None of these complaints stand up. First of all, there are already plenty of gays in America's armed forces—one estimate puts it at 65,000. In a recent poll of enlisted men, more than half thought gays should be allowed in the armed forces. In the current time of overstretch, even the older, more conservative officer class seems to be changing heart. The number of gay discharges rose steadily until 2001 when America went to war in Afghanistan: since then, the annual figure has halved. As for the idea that the ban reflects American mores, polls suggest that at least 64% of Americans would allow gay soldiers.
'Congress should look at the British example. In 2000, when the queen's army jumped out of its closet ( so to speak ) , many senior officers were aghast. Their arguments were similar to American fears now. Four years later, recruitment has not suffered and most new recruits are unfazed about meeting gay comrades. 'Come on, Rummy,' chides The Economist, 'what are you afraid of? It's high time to let gays serve proudly and openly without fear of prejudice and recrimination.''