Just in time for spring, the new issue of DNA magazine is all about love and marriage. Apropos of nothing and dropped in the midst of the nuptial bliss is one of the hot guys of menaustralia.com.
Click to "uncensor" the image (NSFW).
|
More from DNA after the jump, including why porn star Lucas Ridgeston hung up the cum-rag ... and the gay Catholic blogger who opposes marriage equality.
If you're unfamiliar with the work of Lucas Ridgeston, then you are a stronger man by far than me.
"The world's most famous gay porn star" talked with DNA about life after the money shot. Among the highlights:
- He thinks Keanu Reeves is the sexiest man in the world. "I can't explain why, he just does it for me."
- He thinks Tommy Hansen and Brandon Manilow are the hottest guys in Bel Ami's current stable of men.
- He enjoys being behind the camera, but would be back in action if there were "another set of favorable circumstances for me to film. ... You have to remember that Bel Ami's fan base prefer much younger guys; I made my first video 12 years ago!"
- Quote of the article: "To me, a cum shot means a job well done!"
And finally, there is John Heard. Not the actor from the "Home Alone" movies, but the blogger.
The Aussie known as "Dreadnought" (who also happens to be smokin' hot) bills himself as "gay" (the quotation marks are his, not ours), Catholic and conservative.
In DNA, he writes a first-person article explaining his opposition to gay marriage, which includes the provocative pull-quote: "Marriage is not going to make gay couples happy." (DNA included a rather gratuitous disclaimer distancing itself from Heard's sentiments.)
As a man legally married to another man who is also deliriously happy about it, I felt compelled to read on.
Heard begins by labeling gay marriage a "vapid ideology" that ignores human nature, referring to equality as a "dry political slogan." As much as I disagreed with him but could respect his view at that point, he then goes totally around the bend from there.
Heard throws out hackneyed nostrums about "love's kingdom" and pablum that sounds like it was cribbed straight out of the religionist right, brusquely dismissing the dignity of gay people and reducing our aspirations to little more than "anal sex."
When he argues baselessly that gay marriage would be good for neither the parties involved nor for society and essentially leads the parade for Jim Crow ("it is an exercise in equality to grant couples limited civil unions"), he completely loses me. He also seems oblivious to the distinction between civil and religious marriage, and sets up a strawman by claiming that gay-marriage advocates want "the State" back in our bedrooms. As a libertarian, I want no such thing, and it is disingenuous to conflate state recognition with state interference.
(And if you permit a quick digression, I visited my accountant last night and found out that I will probably have to write a check for the most staggering sum that I could possibly imagine to the IRS. I know that in some quarters it is considered poor form to argue the "rights-based" approach to gay marriage. If you feel that way, I'd ask you to look at the difference between my tax bill as a single-filer and what it would be if I were married-filing-jointly, and then tell me I don't have a valid point.)
What is Heard's obsession with the sexual aspect of relationships? Does he see married couples as hopelessly bed-ridden, living lives that preclude any interests or needs other than the carnal?
Heard ends by saying that "marriage is not designed for us." I would prefer that he limit that proscription to himself.
Ugh. Can't we take up a collection to send him for reparative therapy?
Posted by: Rob Byrnes | March 28, 2006 at 12:12 PM
How dare you critically read a skin rag! Mal, shame on you. For rils.
Posted by: Josh | March 28, 2006 at 01:35 PM
Well, it wasn't much of a skin rag to speak of this month. Almost all of it is hiding behind Sam Brownback's face.
Posted by: Malcontent | March 28, 2006 at 01:40 PM
I tend to agree with him. Except for the God stuff. But that's no suprise, I'm sure.
It really wasn't designed for same-sex couples. Really.
Posted by: Jack Malebranche | March 28, 2006 at 01:58 PM
If the point of having gay marriage is to lower tax bills, we have truly and completely lost.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | March 29, 2006 at 01:42 AM
I like this post and I want to find more information about it.
Posted by: Generic Viagra | September 21, 2009 at 03:22 PM
nice pictures, I love the eyes of the the model!!
n_n
and the body to!!
kat
Posted by: Viagra Online | September 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Interesting post I really like this kind of topics are interesting and different.
Posted by: Buy Viagra Online | October 20, 2009 at 03:44 PM
The gay community has work really hard for legalize marriage they deserve it!
Posted by: Generic Online Pharmacy | October 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I am desgree whit this king of marriage but I respect your position.
Posted by: Buy Cialis | November 06, 2009 at 10:06 AM
This is a difficult situation I need to know more about this kind of marriages is so polemic.
Posted by: Best Sunless Tanning | November 09, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Why they call this magazine "DNA"I can't understand..
Posted by: Jelqing Exercises | November 10, 2009 at 02:30 PM
focus the relationship in mere sex can be by dangerous for both persons.
Posted by: Viagra Prescription | November 11, 2009 at 01:46 PM