Laughs of the week

The only late-night shows I (loosely) follow are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. After seeing these two clips, however, I might just add Jimmy Kimmel Live to the list. The first clip is Portia De Rossi's Prop 8 PSA, and the second clip, well, made me laugh until I cried and my stomach hurt. Enjoy!

A musical you don't want to miss!

Love it!

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Let’s get it on… Let them eat cake!

Let’s get it on…
I know this is another article about pastors and sex, but I could not resist commenting on Reverend Ed Young’s advice. Simply put, Rev. Young believes it is time to “put God back in the bed” by means of a week of “congregational copulation”.

Before you call up your fellow parishoners and set up a holy orgy, I should clarify that the reverend’s advice is intended to help promote and improve monogamous marriage (sorry Utah). He delivered this message in front of and on a large bed. To really bring the point home, his wife was with him in jeans and **GASP** knee high black boots.

In all earnestness, the message is not completely silly. I do believe that a healthy sex life is vital in any relationship. The key in it, however, is that the sex should be fun and spontaneous, not forced. If you need orders from a reverend to have a reason to want to have sex with your partner, then you have issues that a week of pastor-prescribed fornication most likely will not solve.

Let them eat cake!
Unsurprisingly, this advice is aimed solely at married members of the congregation. I think it is a safe bet that one could extend that description to heterosexual, married members. The reverend went all Marie Antoinette on everyone else. His exact words:

I don’t know, try eating chocolate cake.

Er, excusez-moi? He did not just compare sex to chocolate cake, did he? Oh, yes he did. You hear that Lindsay Lohan? When you get an urge to do the mattress mambo, head to the kitchen for some chocolate cake instead.

Open to anything but sex

The Catholic Church is not always behind the times. In fact, it has a history of reversing aspects of its doctrine to keep up with the zeitgeist. It renounced usury in the 16th century, slavery in the 19th century and capital punishment in 1995.

When it comes to matters concerning sex, however, the Church shows no indication of budging. Be it marriage of members of the clergy (after having been ordained), homosexual marriage and intercourse or artificial contraception, the Church says NO.

Mandatory celibacy was not always a must for those wishing to dedicate their lives to the Church – it was made universal Church law only by the Second Consilium of Lateran in 1139. Despite that, there are exceptions. Men who are married before entering priesthood can do so and maintain their marriage. Is the devotion of an unmarried, celibate priest worth more than that of a married one? With fewer men entering into priesthood whilst the global Catholic population grows, will allowing young priests to marry not help to stop this shortfall? The Church says NO.

I am sure that there are those who will quote scripture forbidding homosexual marriage and intercourse. To them I say – I am sure many scripture-quoting individuals have coveted a neighbour’s wife. Amongst all the adultery, murder, lying and stealing, why pick the homosexuality guideline to stick to so closely? Is it not more Christian to grant everybody a legal relationship of mutual love, care and affection? The Church says NO.

Even more pressing is the rejection of artificial contraception. The Church cannot ignore the physical suffering from the AIDS epidemic in Africa, or the uncontrolled population increase in the Philippines, where it still has an overwhelming influence on daily politics. The means to limit the effects of either dilemma giving rise to a more hopeful generation are so simple. And yet, the Church says NO.

"This is about the human heart"

**sigh**

He is still after my heart. There once was a time when given a choice between Colin Firth and anyone else, there was absolutely no question that I would have selected Firth. Now that I have started watching Olbermann's commentaries, I am not so sure.

Here is his response to the passage on Prop 8 in California - the banning of gay marriage. He is so eloquent and decisive... and that deep voice...

Gay Gay Gay

Gay TV
All I seem to be running into today is news linked to homosexuality. A new gay television channel called Timm was launched last Saturday here in Germany. It struck me as odd that Germany, a country seemingly more accommodating towards it homosexual population than countries such as the US, launched a channel created specifically for them later than the US. What particularly piqued my interest is the channel’s slogan – “Wir lieben männer”, which translates to “We love men”. Whatever happened to lesbians? Are they not gay as well? If the induction of such a channel was done in the interest of general inclusion in the world of television, I believe that should have been reflected in their slogan.

Gay on TV
My enthusiasm for Grey’s Anatomy has been wavering this past season, but I was happy when the show introduced homosexual relationships into its storylines. Portraying normal, ordinary people in homosexual relationships on screen is a wonderful way to counter the obtuse belief some have that homosexuality is an aberration. For that reason, I am annoyed that Brooke Smith has been written off the show. (Her character, Dr. Hahn, was exploring her homosexuality with Dr. Torres, played by Sara Ramirez.)

The official reason behind her dismissal is that the character was not received well by the majority of the viewership. Many people believe this to be a prevarication and feel the producers have submitted to the will of homophobic America. Whatever the rationale, I mourn the exit of a storyline that finally entered territory that is, for the most part, woefully unexplored on mainstream television.

Gay in Real Life
Arizona, California and Florida have taken a big step forward with America in the election of Barack Obama for President. They, however, have taken a big step back when they became part of thirty states that ban same-sex marriage. Arkansas has also passed a measure banning parents in homosexual relationships from adopting children.

This has been called a victory for religious conservatives. That very description exemplifies why such bans should not even be pursued at all - the propositions were put forth by religious conservatives, who appear to enjoy scorning the principle of the separation of church and state.

I do not agree that issues surrounding homosexuality should be left to be dealt with separately in each state. I believe politicians take this stance with the sole purpose of avoiding disapproval in certain states. There should be a country-wide acceptance, not intolerance, of homosexuals, and because the rejection claims it roots in religious belief, there should be no place in the law for such discrimination.