Foreign / Overseas LGBT News - Gay News Outside Singapore (Compiled)

[Slynn]

Robbing of gay men in China

http://my.news.yahoo...dGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

I have seen similar news in another forum, they also target gay men because they are less likely to make a police report for fear of revealing their sexuality.

Sorta despicable

[raymondchua820205]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1248099/1/.html

Feel so envious to the couple...fighting for their own rights with guts and in public

[jossshua]

same-sex marriage will be the norm across asia in the near future the same way we have seen our cultures evolve so dramatically. don't worry!

[merlinkun]

Soon it will be like inter-racial marriage, or older woman-young man, and so. The world will soon be a more liberal and beautiful world. We just need to be patient.

[jiang2046]

爱，本身就与性别无关。性别一样就不能组织家庭了吗？我不禁要问。

[Guest newsy news]

http://www.ettoday.net/news/20130128/158035.htm

Sorry, news only in Chinese

美國:男護理偷吸病人生殖器　醉男醒後泣訴被性侵

美國猶他州男子詹森去年因酒後鬧事遭警方逮捕，失去意識送往醫院治療，不料負責戒護的員警疑似放水，居然讓醫院護理人員用嘴巴性侵昏迷的詹森、吸吮他的男性生殖器。詹森事後身心受創，憤而控告猶他州警方與醫院失職。

涉嫌「霸王硬吃鳥」的急診室人員韋士頓(Hal Weston)因罪證確鑿，目前正被關在獄中等待審判。被害人詹森(Brett Jensen)指控，逮捕他的員警蓋爾(James Gale)目睹他被吸吮的全程卻未阻止，院方也未盡管理之責，讓一個變態有機會照顧病人。www.tt1069.com; a. N/ C# G) O

TT1069同志貼圖交友網% Z' @5 f! y: O

對此，羅根地區醫院表示，當他們發現韋士頓的惡行後已立即將他開除，未來會完全配合檢警調查，對被害人的名譽負責到底。3 r! ~7 S& A3 J

[Guest thei]

http://uk.news.yahoo...-011133921.html

A gay Saudi prince jailed for life in Britain for murdering his servant is to serve the rest of his sentence in his home country, a British government source said.

Prince Saud bin Abdulaziz Bin Nasir, a grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah II, was jailed in 2010 for killing Bandar Abdullah Abdulaziz in a London hotel after subjecting him to a "sadistic" campaign of violence and sexual abuse.

The source confirmed that British Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has approved the 36-year-old prince's transfer to a jail in Saudi Arabia.

The source could not specify when the prince would be transferred, but The Times newspaper reported that he was expected to fly home within weeks.

Britain's justice ministry said it did not comment on individual prison transfer cases.

But a ministry spokeswoman told AFP: "We have a prison transfer arrangement with Saudi Arabia which allows nationals of either country to serve their prison sentence in their home state."

Saud denied that he was gay but the trial at London's Old Bailey court heard that he had ordered gay escorts in London and had frequently looked at websites for gay massage parlours and escort agencies.

His lawyers argued that he could face the death penalty in Saudi Arabia over the revelations of homosexuality.

The jury heard that the prince was fuelled by champagne and cocktails when he beat and strangled Abdulaziz to death on February 15, 2010 after the pair had returned from a Valentine's Day night out.

A post-mortem found that Abdulaziz had suffered heavy blows to the head, injuries to the brain and ears and severe neck injuries consistent with strangulation by hand.

Prosecutors said bite marks on his cheeks showed a clear "sexual element" to the killing.

He really enjoyed the good GAY life in LONDON, engaging Escorts (male prostitutes) , wonder if the rent boys can walk out with their legs after a doing work for the prince , knowing that the prince was sadistic, the rentboys probably always had to suffer to earn his money.

Unless the prince had engaged a masochist, who enjoyed humulition and pain.

what do you all think ?

[Guest Guest]

Most middle eastern men are quite violent when having sex. So if a royal prince says he fancies you, don't be too happy.

I have been to the middle east and I avoid them totally. They are very lecherous and like chinese men for the smooth and fair skin. They are all hairy brute who touch without asking because they are the master there and foreigners are their slaves. I haven't seen any effeminate men there because they will be arrested just for acting effeminate. So the next sexually exciting men seen in public will be us Chinese foreigners with fair and smooth skin being better than their women.

I thought the law is very strict there yet the police will only prosecute the foreigners and pretend that everything is caused by the foreigners trying to seduce them.

I read about this case while there. They say there are no homosexual Arabs there even in the newspaper reports. This case will embarrass them and they will quietly kill him off.

[jiang2046]

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1252514/1/.html

THERE IS STILL HOPE!!

[Guest Guest]

YES !!!!!!! 1 more place to consider!

[Blender88]

It's only the first stage of rewriting the law.

It will probably be passed but there is a long way to go yet.

Line-by-line examination of the Bill in committee. But it will get approved.

Life in the UK will change as the years go by.

Better or not? I have no idea.

[Guest Guest]

British Public opinion poll shows 65% suppport gay marriage.

And a PM of the CONSERVATIVE party pushed for gay marriage.

Put Singapore to shame.

[Guest Guest]

OK guys it's nearly 2 am and I really need to get to bed, but I just had to do a quick post on the remarkable news we've had in the UK today. There was a debate in the house of commons by MPs and ministers on the issue of gay marriage (currently, same-sex couples can have civil partnerships which are very similar to marriage, but marriage is only for heterosexual couples). Our current government proposed extending marriage to same-sex couples as well and the vote resulted in a landslide victory in favour of gay marriage: 400 to 175, with a huge majority of 225! I had expected the vote to go through with a much smaller margin, but a majority of 225 is an amazing result.

I couldn't be happier because all these nasty religious bigots were saying all these hateful bullshit about how society as we know it would fall apart if they allowed gay people to marry. I was even quite disturbed by the amount of coverage the media was giving to these homophobic religious people, allowing them to air their hateful rhetoric in the national media. Okay, I know not all religious people are homophobic but good grief, bring up the issue of gay marriage and see how they react. Oh this is like a big middle finger by British society to the religious bigots to show them that British society is not homophobic at all and we don't agree with them.

I am an ex-Christian who has rejected Christianity - I have actually read the bible cover to cover and attended Sunday school for years and here's the irony. This character Jesus Christ is actually quite a nice guy, he would well and truly be pissed off at just how homophobic some of these hateful Christians are in the UK. Oh the irony. I get it: many Christians hate gays, but so what? It's their right to do so (and I respect their right to do so) and today's vote in our parliament simply reminds these Christians fundamentalists that they are in the minority - the majority of the British people reject their brand of religious rhetoric and do not agree with them on many issues such as gay marriage. This is after all, a secular country.

I believe passionately in secularism - ie. the law of the land is for everyone regardless of religious convictions, so I am glad that the Christians had a chance to voice their opinion but they do not get to dictate what the rest of us should think or do on the basis of their religion. They are in the minority - and if we were to use today's vote to measure the level of support for gay marriage in the UK, then only 30.4% of the MPs voted against it and 69.6% voted in support of it. That's a pretty big majority.

I look at the situation in Singapore with regards to section 377A and how so many religious groups try to use their religion to try to justify why section 377A should remain - I say, put it to a referendum and allow the people to decide. I'd love to see the religious bigots hang their heads in shame when they realize that they're in the minority and their religion does not give them any special privileges to trump the right of the majority. This is why I am so glad to live in the UK which is a proper democracy, where the rights of atheists like me are respected and religious people do not have no say than I do over such matters.

One of the most stupid arguments I've heard in Singapore about keeping section 377A is, "oh that would upset the religious people, for being gay is against their religion". I say, that's so stupid. Singapore is a secular state, everyone - religious or not - is equal before the eyes of the law. Why should the feelings of some people be more important than others? How totally ridiculous is that? Does having a religion entitle you to special rights to dictate what the laws should be? Does being an atheist mean that I have less rights? No of course not. Religious people who are anti-gay represent a minority of Singaporeans even if they are very vocal in their homophobia - why should their feelings be more important than the majority who do support equality (and may be equally religious too - just not bigoted)? Why is the Singaporean government pandering to the bigots - unless of course, the PAP is inherently homophobic and uses religion as an excuse to justify their homophobia?

Of course, the Christians in the UK can be as upset as they wanna be - but guess what? Tough shit, the vote has gone through the house of commons with such a large margin, they simply have to accept that we're going to have gay marriage in this country. Yeah we know you're not happy you didn't get your way, we're going to have gay marriage in this country whether you like it or not and there's nothing you can do about it. They may claim, "yes but not in my church they won't!" But you know what? What self-respecting gay would want to set foot in a Christian church after the amount of venomous homophobic rhetoric they've come up with over the years? We live in a secular state: Christians have the right to practice their religion but I draw the line when they try to influence the laws that govern ex-Christian atheists like me who clearly have actively rejected Christianity. I've got nothing against religion or Christians - I just want to make sure my rights as an atheist and a citizen are not in any way compromised by their rights to practice their religion within the context of a secular state where all citizens are equal.

One thing I'd say about Christians though - misguided as they are, hateful as they may be, at least they did speak up on an issue they felt strongly about. I am upset by the relatively smaller amount of people who spoke up in support of gay marriage before this vote (our PM David Cameron and a number of ministers did speak up actively in support of gay marriage), but surely if the vote went through by such a majority, then plenty more people in the mainstream are for gay marriage and are equality. Why didn't they speak up the way these Christians did? Or are they simply saying, "let the Christians fundamentalists have their little rant, we'll show them when the voting results are announced - but I'm not going to get into an argument with them in the meantime." It's not just a victory for gay rights, it's a victory for democracy!

I hope that this can show the rest of the world how a real democracy operates - the basic premise is that the law should depend on the will of the majority and not the minority. The minority may have a say and voice their opinions, but they have to accept the will of the majority. If Christians don't like the concept of gay marriage - fine, Christian preachers are free to tell their congregations that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin etc. It's their right to do so but it should be a message delivered to their congregations within their churches and not imposed on others like me who are not part of their community. Nobody is trying to censor or silence the Christians - we're merely saying, with all due respect: hands off, I am not a Christian, don't you dare to try to tell me how I should live my life according to your religious principles.

Heck, my father hates coriander (cilantro/yum-swi), he can't stand the smell or taste. However, the rest of my family are actually rather fond of coriander. What is the solution? We never mix coriander into the food we prepare, it is always prepared as a side dish: washed and chopped up nicely to be used as a topping. The dish would be set on the far end of the table away from my father. My father would therefore have the choice to avoid touching the coriander whilst the rest of us could enjoy it with our food. We respected the fact that he doesn't like coriander and he respected our right to consume a herb he disliked. It was a very sensible and mutually respectful solution to the problem - he never imposed his will on us and banned coriander from our household. Likewise, we would never force him to eat coriander knowing how he felt about coriander. What a simple but elegant compromise. Now, why can't the Christians act in a similarly sensible manner on the issue of gay marriage? My dad doesn't like coriander at all!

Oh it feels good living in a proper democracy, where the laws actually do reflect the will of the people - where religious bigots do not enjoy any kind of special privileges! There will be some more processes (such as passing the bill through the House of Lords) before it becomes law - but I look forward to attending my first British gay wedding very soon, hopefully later this year!

An ex-Singapore who is now a British Citizen

http://limpehft.blogspot.sg/2013/02/gay-marriage-victory-in-uk.html

[Guest Guest]

British Public opinion poll shows 65% suppport gay marriage.

And a PM of the CONSERVATIVE party pushed for gay marriage.

Put Singapore to shame.

trust me, LHL does not care about LGBT issues, we are just a minority to him, but he needs to make some sweeping statements to 'show face' and acknowledge himself. whatsmore he has more pressing national issues to settle.

with such a fat paycheck, does he want more random (to him) issues to settle?

[execbulge]

Hey, does this mean my Brit partner and I will be able to get married at the local British embassy?

That would be pretty awesome if that's the case.

[zwei]

We can never compare Singapore to any other country yet... it's small.and too young

[clamos]

Thats the Second Reading in the House of Commons, which is pretty much the "make it or break it" stage. Bills that passes this stage are very likely to pass out as legislation. The house of Lords may turn out to be another road block, but it is unlikely as most of the conservative hereditary peers were removed. Life in the UK for the LGBT community is realistically speaking normal, you don't stick out like a sore thumb if you hold hands or even show PDA. Life in the UK for the LGBT community will only get better as when the Bill passes, no one is discriminated against anymore, everyone is treated as an equal. This would undoubtedly trigger a domino effect in more liberal commonwealth countries(Australia) to mirror this equality in fundamental rights.

[execbulge]

Thanks for the clarification clamos.

[frayne]

Meanwhile in Singapore, we are still stuck in the age-old debate whether homosexual acts ITSELF should be criminalised.

Seriously?

[SeannyShortcake]

Life in the UK has been remarkably liberal long before any other country had decided to follow suit.

So I'm not really surprised that their lawmakers passed the bill for queer unification.

[gymcub]

Man detained for allegedly sodomising four schoolboys he met on Facebook

 

KUALA LUMPUR: A man was nabbed for allegedly sodomising four secondary school boys after meeting them on Facebook.

 

The suspect, who is a manager of a government-linked company, is believed to have preyed on underage boys, all from the same secondary school, since May last year.

 

It is learnt his illicit activities were uncovered when one of the victims confessed to a school counselling teacher, who then informed the boy's parents on Feb 8. A police report was made soon after.

 

Police swooped in and detained the suspect, in his 40s, on Friday, after two weeks of surveillance.

 

“Initial investigations revealed the first victim was sodomised in May last year at a budget hotel in Brickfields,” City police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohmad Salleh said at a press conference Wednesday, adding that it happened several times over a few months.

 

DCP Mohmad said police were not ruling out the possibility the suspect could have victimised more than four boys.

 

“We urge other students who have been victims to come forward.

 

“The case is classified under Section 377B of the Penal Code for committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment and also liable to whipping,” he said.

 

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/2/27/nation/20130227145259&sec=nation

 

 

 

 

[wolfyboy]

so what if he is jail for 20years and whipped.....the only difference is that lesser kid will be harm from him. what i feel is important is how they going to handle this victim.....cause this kind of experience doesnt just go away.

[joshboy]

So malaysian has the parallel of 377A.. Malaysia BOLEH!

[ron91]

maybe the sec school boys enjoy leh

[gymcub]

Man charged with committing oral sex and sodomising 14-year-old boy

 

KUALA LUMPUR: A senior manager of a Government Linked Company (GLC) company was charged in a Sessions Court here on Friday to three counts of committing carnal intercourse against the order of nature on a 14-year-old boy last year.

 

Mohd Yusre Mohd Yusoff, 44, pleaded not guilty to two charges oral sex against the boy at a hotel room in Jalan Kuchai Maju 2 off Jalan Kuchai Lama about 3pm on Nov 12, last year and again at a hotel room in Kuchai Business Centre off Jalan Kuchai at about 6pm on Dec 25.

 

Mohd Yusre was also accused of sodomising the boy at the same hotel and time before Sessions Judge Emelia Kaswati Mohamad Khalid.

 

Deputy Public Prosecutor Ooi Chean Ling said that Mohd Yusre was being investigated for sexual crimes involving five different victims.

 

 

[Guest Stan]

Amazing! First time any mainstream company is sponsoring the gay event.

http://fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2013/03/04/12249.sydney-celebrates-35th-lesbian-and-gay-mardi-gras-malaysia-based-airasia-a-first-time-sponsor

[merlinkun]

You mean first time sponsoring for their event right? Cuz I know Google Singapore sponsored for Pink Dot for the past 2 years.

[Enelym1978]

Tons of big multinational companies are now sponsoring gay events. It's also a good way to show that you are open and non discriminating.

Maybe what's worth noting here is that AirAsia being a Malaysian company, it is quite surprising in a positive way.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Enelym1978

[Guest Guest]

[iamziz]

The last time I saw the police bashed gay men was outside a church near Hyde Park (Sydney) when the glbt group was protesting against a church minister.

[Slynn]

Wth, that's really terrible and nasty. HOW CAN THE POLICE SMASH HIS HEAD ON THE PAVEMENT. Whether or not he is in the wrong, he isn't acting hostile at all.

 

It was so chaotic that I couldn't get why he was targeted by the police in the first place. I hope he'll be fine ):

[iamziz]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/allegations-of-police-brutality-at-mardi-gras-20130305-2fjmv.html

 

Sydney Morning Herald

[Guest Guest]

The K9 should be put to sleep.

[Guest guest]

so now do u guys still want a Mardi Gras  in Singapore? wonder wat will happen?Tony will say not a good bonding.(no way)

[azimuth]

Let's hope they will make the results of the investigation public. Good to hear both sides of the story.

[Guest Guest]

so now do u guys still want a Mardi Gras in Singapore? wonder wat will happen?Tony will say not a good bonding.(no way)

Gosh.... Maybe we should ask if we still want policemen in Singapore too? Wonder wat will happen?

[Cube3]

LOL what we want is policemen IN a Mardi Gras in Singapore! :clap:  Everybody will cheer...

[cvbv1987]

i was actually in Mardi Gras 2013. and it was awesome!!!

[passinthenight]

New footage today shows this guy kicking a policeman in the face prior to the video footage above.

 

 I think anyone would be very upset if you did that, even the police.

[Guest lulu]

不好色不談女人

老公的「小三」是男的?  

27歲人妻質問挨揍

[2013-03-24 蘋果日報]  高雄一名結婚2年的27歲人妻，發現丈夫晚上常跟昔日男同學外出喝酒，又看到丈夫和男同學常擁抱且互拍臀部，她懷疑丈夫是同性戀，多次質問卻被丈夫認為無理取鬧，2人經常發生爭吵，丈夫甚至動手打她。婦人聲請家暴，明令丈夫不得再打罵她，本月初2人又為「小三」一事爭吵，她大罵丈夫：「你的小三是男的！」丈夫盛怒之下又動手打人，警方接獲婦人報案，依違反《家庭暴力防治法》將丈夫函送法辦。

警方表示，家中經商的陳姓男子（28歲）是獨子，3年多前父母催他趕快結婚，以便抱孫子，沒有女朋友的陳男，透過父母朋友介紹認識劉姓女子（27歲），雙方交往1年多，2年前結婚，婚後育有1女，一家3口住在高雄市區，陳男跟父母一起做生意，劉女負責在家照顧孩子當家管。

今年初，劉女發現丈夫晚上常不在家，跟一名自稱是丈夫高職同學的曾姓男子（28歲）出去喝酒，總是半夜才回來。

婚前未交過女友

劉女本來不以為意，但後來發現2人經常擁抱且互拍臀部，做出一些不太像是同性好朋友間的親密行為。

劉女開始敏感聯想起以前她跟陳男交往時，陳男表示他從沒有交過女朋友，而且對女人好像興趣缺缺，不像一般男人總是好色愛談女人，劉女開始懷疑丈夫可能是同性戀。

常相約喝酒夜歸

劉女曾多次質問丈夫，但陳男認為是妻子無理取鬧，竟把他跟好友間的兄弟情誼污衊成同性戀，夫妻倆為此經常發生爭吵，有一次陳男酒後回家，她又逼問陳男是不是同性戀，陳男一氣之下打她手臂，她氣得提出家暴令，明令陳男不得再打罵劉婦。

「只推了她一下」

本月初，陳男又跟曾男出去喝酒，直到半夜才回家，劉女又跟陳男大吵，還脫口大罵陳男：「你的小三是男的！」有些醉意的陳男聽到此話，氣憤不已，又推打劉女，劉女怒告陳男家暴。

警方日前傳喚陳男到案說明，陳男表示當天喝醉了，不太記得事發經過，「印象中好像只推了她一下。」同時抱怨劉女總懷疑他是同性戀，他也很困擾。警方雖對陳男家務事感到無奈，仍依法將陳男函送法辦。

[Guest 我的老公是同志]

Woman's suicide brings 'gay wives' plight to the fore

 

 

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/8175383.html

[Guest Guest]

That is why if u are gay, pls dun only think for yourself and ruin an innocent woman's life!

[Crumpler]

Gay marriage ban: Supreme Court weighs California case

 

 

 

Hot tempers and dance parties outside US Supreme Court

Continue reading the main story Related Stories

• Gay airman who fought US military
• Gay marriage around the world
• Obama: Court must back gay marriage

The justices of the US Supreme Court have questioned the meaning of marriage and the government's role in defining it, as they weigh whether the state of California may ban same-sex nuptials.

Following Tuesday's arguments, the court could uphold the 2008 ban, narrowly overturn it, or invalidate all state same-sex marriage bans in the US.

The ban's defenders argued the issue should be decided by individual states.

Recent opinion polls have shown a rapid rise in support for same-sex marriage.

Questions on children

As arguments began on Tuesday, justices first discussed whether the organisation defending the ban, known as Proposition 8, had legal standing to bring the case to the high court.

Continue reading the main story

AnalysisJonny DymondWashington correspondent

The protesters and campaigners chanting in the cold sunshine today may yet be disappointed.

The court that ended school segregation and legalised abortion appears to be shying away from a ground-breaking decision on gay marriage.

All eyes are on Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in a court generally evenly divided between liberals and conservatives. This morning he seemed to have been uncomfortable with the case, describing the issue as "uncharted waters" and asking whether the case should have come to the Supreme Court.

The court may decide simply not to rule on the case. That would leave same-sex marriage effectively legal in California. But it would not be the sweeping change some gay rights campaigners were hoping for.

• Read more from Jonny

Proposition 8 was approved by California voters in a referendum in November 2008, but the state government declined to defend it in federal courts.

If the justices rule that the ban's supporters have no such standing, they would invalidate only the California law while leaving same-sex marriage bans standing in dozens of other states. That is because lower courts have already overturned the ban.

The Supreme Court justices also discussed whether the ability to procreate was crucial to the legal definition of marriage.

"There are lots of people who get married who can't have children," Justice Stephen Breyer said after a lawyer in support of the ban, Charles Cooper, argued that procreation and child-rearing were fundamental to a state's interest in marriage.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also brought up a previous Supreme Court case in which justices ruled prison inmates have a right to marry even though they may be prevented from procreating.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as a swing vote between the four conservative and four liberal justices, suggested that children of same-sex couples would suffer an "immediate legal injury" under the ban.

 

The BBC's Jane Little meets crowds who have queued for days for a seat at the hearings

But he also said he feared the court would enter "uncharted waters".

"We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more," he said.

Chief Justice Roberts said he was unsure prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying denied them rights, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Mr Cooper what injury same-sex marriage would cause the ban's defenders.

Rise in support

Justice Samuel Alito appeared to sound a note of caution.

"You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the internet?" he said. "I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future."

Supporters of same-sex marriage were in the majority outside the US high court as the morning began, says the BBC's Steve Kingstone.

But then hundreds of Proposition 8's defenders turned up, accompanied by a band of kilted pipers, and there were arguments between the antagonists, our correspondent reports.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear another case on same-sex marriage: a challenge to a federal law defining marriage as between a man and a woman only. The 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denies federal tax and other benefits to same-sex married couples.

Recent opinion polls have shown rapid growth in US public support for gay marriage

Both cases are expected to be decided by June.

Currently, nine US states and Washington DC permit same-sex marriage. Twelve other states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide varying degrees of state marriage benefits, but do not allow couples to marry.

Recent opinion polls have shown a rapid growth in public support for the issue, with most Americans now believing it should be legal.

The Supreme Court cases follow a flurry of declarations in support of gay marriage by high-profile figures, including last week by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Days earlier, Ohio's Rob Portman became the first Republican senator to back gay marriage.

And now three Democratic senators - Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia - have adopted the same stance.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21932682

[Guest tt]

Jealous man murders his friend by literally shoving his foot up man's ass.

 

http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20130407/173945/

 

俄羅斯28歲男子克拉斯諾夫(Vladimir Krasnov)，上個月邀請「情如兄弟」的好友賽吉(Sergei)到與女友同居的家中作客，當晚大家都喝了一點酒，克拉斯諾夫醉眼朦朧中看到女友和賽吉兩人打情罵俏，心生妒忌，沒多久賽吉進房入睡後，克拉斯諾夫進房對準了賽吉的屁股一踹，竟然把腳掌踹入了他的肛門，用力拔出後滿地是血，女友發現趕緊報警，救護人員到場忙將賽吉送院，但已回天乏術，賽吉因為直腸爆裂、失血過多而死。

克拉斯諾夫目前正在獄中等候審判，他說：「都是啤酒害的」，女友接受媒體訪問時表示，自己是因為賽吉是男友「兄弟般的好友」，才對他特別關心，但也只是打打招呼，並沒有什麼特殊舉動，她不覺得有什麼好吃醋的。

 

 

PS: The guy who got interviewed at 0:18 min is cute.  yummy 

 

[GachiMuchi]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/17/new-zealand-mps-sing-maor_n_3100103.html#slide=2332465

The Huffington Post UK  |  By Ned Simons

Posted: 17/04/2013 14:49 BST  |  Updated: 17/04/2013 14:49 BST

 

MPs and people watching in the gallery of New Zealand's parliament broke into spontaneous song on Wednesday, following the passage of historic gay marriage legislation.

New Zealand became the 13th nation in the world to legalise same-sex weddings after MPs voted 77 to 44 in favour of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.

After the vote count was announced, the House of Representatives in Wellington was filled with the sound of the New Zealand love song "Pokarekare Ana" - in the indigenous Maori language.

As the parliamentary debate wound up, Louisa Wall, the sponsorer of the bill, told colleagues the change was "our road toward healing."

"In our society, the meaning of marriage is universal – it's a declaration of love and commitment to a special person," she said.

She added: "Nothing could make me more proud to be a New Zealander than passing this bill."

 

The singing legislators and members of public inside the parliament were joined byhundreds of jubilant gay-rights advocates who celebrated outside.

New Zealand legalised civil unions for gay couples in 2005. Under the law passed today same-sex couples will be allowed to adopt children for the first time.

New Zealand joins Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and Uruguay in having legalised gay marriage.

Last week the French Senate approved a Bill that brought same-sex marriage a significant step closer. In the UK gay marriage legislation is currently making its way through parliament.

 

'Pokarekare Ana' Lyrics

The waves are breaking, against the shores of Waiapu, My heart is aching, for your return my love.

Oh my beloved, come back to me, my heart is breaking for of love for you.

I have written you a letter, and enclosed with it my ring, If your people should see it, then the trouble will begin.

Oh girl, come back to me, my heart is breaking for of love for you.

My poor pen is broken, my paper is spent, But my love for you endures, and remains forever more.

Oh my beloved, come back to me, my heart is breaking for of love for you.

The sun's hot sheen, won't scorch my love, Being kept evergreen, by the falling of my tears.

Oh girl, Come back to me, I could die of love for you.

SEE ALSO: Gay Marriage: The 21st Century's 'Unstoppable Global Trend'

Edited April 18, 2013 by GachiMuchi

[Guest Guest]

congrats to NZ gays.

 

i wonder which asian country will be the first to legalise gay marriage?

[areef]

congrats to NZ gays.

 

i wonder which asian country will be the first to legalise gay marriage?

 

 

yeah, congrats NZ.

what a way to move forward.

 

Asian countries?? Hurmm.. hard to answer lor.

Japan maybe. others, not so much.

[Guest JULIA]

Meanwhile Julia Gillard pretends she is one holy holy PM when she said that she was not brought up to believe that marriage is between man and woman and she is a conservative , haha 

 

Australia lags shamefully on gay marriage

Gillard's "no" to equal rights for same-sex couples is bewildering.

What reason could Julia Gillard possibly have for personally opposing same-sex marriages? As Labor leader she can claim to be upholding party policy, even though the ALP in her home state of Victoria has voted overwhelmingly to end that policy. But as a "personal" stance, her opposition to gay people marrying is inexplicable.

She is an atheist, so it can't be because she believes God ordained marriage as a holy sacrament and condemns homosexuality as a sin.

She has no children, so it can't be because she believes there's an obligatory link between procreation and the right to marry.

Advertisement

She is in a de facto relationship, so it can't be because she opposes legally recognising different types of relationships. She is a female leader, so it can't be because she believes in some kind of profound biological difference between the sexes. And as our first female Prime Minister, she can't believe that discrimination in the past justifies discrimination into the future.

Why then, in the list of Gillard's often-stated personal values - belief in equality, choice, inclusion - is there a caveat that says "except if gay couples want to make a lifelong commitment"?

Gillard's opposition to marriage equality will be deeply disappointing to the 60 per cent of Australians who believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and the 80 per cent of same-sex partners who believe they should have the right to marry.

It is particularly frustrating and embarrassing at a time when same-sex marriages are allowed in an increasing number of places overseas.

In the past few weeks, Portugal, Mexico City and Iceland have joined Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Norway and six US states in allowing same-sex couples to marry. The number of places where same-sex marriages are either soon to be allowed or are already recognised from elsewhere is even larger and more diverse, ranging from Argentina through Slovenia and Israel to Nepal.

Rather than dwell on the sad fact that Australia has now fallen behind Catholic Portugal and midwest Iowa, marriage equality advocates have made the most of a bleak situation. They have asked Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir who married her same-sex partner a few days ago, to explain to Gillard why marriage equality is so important to same-sex couples and their families, and to a just society.

The Icelandic leader would also do well to ask Gillard if the Australian government will officially recognise her wife, should the couple visit Australia, and, if so, why that recognition can't be extended to the hundreds of Australian same-sex couples who are also legally married overseas.

But if and until such lobbying changes Gillard's mind, most ordinary Australians will continue to scratch their heads over the fact that there is no conceivable reason, even the weak reasons other political leaders put forward, why our new Prime Minister would violate all her own principles to personally oppose two men or two women tying the knot.

Their conclusion will be that the real reason for Gillard's ''personal'' view must be entirely political and therefore quite cynical.

Perhaps she believes the overreaching claims of Pentecostal pastors about the influence of their mega-churches in key marginal seats. Perhaps she owes something to those right-wing Catholic MPs who are, in turn, under the unhealthy influence of Rome. Perhaps she simply wants to convince voters that she is a leader of conviction, even when she knows those convictions are wrong.

We may never know why Gillard "personally" wants to stop people like me marrying. But what we can be sure about is that the many Australians who passionately support marriage equality will keep on challenging her up to the election and beyond.

When she says the community is divided, we will remind her that the majority of Australians who support marriage equality includes a majority of women and men, of white and blue collar workers, and of Labor and Liberal voters.

When she says the gay community is indifferent, we will point out not only that almost all of us believe we should have the choice to marry, but that national surveys show a majority of us would marry if we could.

When she says we should respect religious sensitivities about marriage, we will remind her that in the English-speaking world, marriage has been a civil institution for more than 300 years, and that it's time she respected the right of religions that consecrate same-sex marriages to the equal legal recognition of these marriages.

When she says Labor supports civil partnership schemes, we will produce US and British studies showing that these schemes do not provide the legal equality or social recognition that comes with marriage. And when she says Labor has supported financial entitlements for same-sex couples, we will reply that people cannot live on bread alone.

Most of all, we will keep asking why a Prime Minister who should have every reason to personally support equality, betrays her fellow citizens by continuing to oppose it.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/australia-lags-shamefully-on-gay-marriage-20100701-zqia.html#ixzz2QopMb2sG

 

 

She herself is in a de facto relationship and yet she is pretneding to be in a morally superior position to deny others marriage.

 

Aussies will go to NZ to get married and spend their money in New Zealand, yet when they come back, to the land of OZ, haha imiigrtion will not recognise them as spouses.

 

[Guest Guest]

Asian countries?? Hurmm.. hard to answer lor.

Japan maybe. others, not so much.

Not so sure abt japan but i think if israel is considered asian country, they will most likely be the first to legalise same sex marriage. Taiwan and nepal also on their way already.

[ajax]