What's Matthew Mitcham been up to since he wormed his way into our hearts as the Cutest-Diver-to-Have-Ever-Lived? Mitcham sat down with Oz's SX to give his first interview since winning the gold in Beijing in August and if you weren't already in love with the guy, you will be.

We love how the article is filled with national pride for the first openly gay gold medalist, especially this dig at Michael Phelps: "Unlike some other athletes that come to mind, [Mitcham's]’s not milking his Beijing experience like a frenzied bovine." Hey, those Rosetta Stone/Visa/Speedo/Omega/Powerbar commercials are great!

Matthew talked about NBC's coverage– or the notable lack thereof. The peacock web faced criticism that its cameras turned away from Mitcham as he embraced his family, which included boyfriend Lachlan Fletcher, after his gold medal win, despite making it standard practice for other athletes.

"But in true Mitcham style, Matt seems unfazed by the fuss.

“I was busy with the Olympics at the time, so I was pretty much oblivious to it,” he recalls. “I did get sent links about it, so I found out about it, but in all honesty it wasn’t really my fight, and I wasn’t offended. It was other people that were making complaints and who were really into it.

“I don’t know whether or not NBC did it on purpose – I don’t really care. I’m pretty thick-skinned.”

CONTINUED »

Of all the gay-related debates, blood donations remain one of the most contentious and potentially important.

The world's blood banks claim the lavender set represent a health risk. While some gays are content to keep their cells to themselves, Australian national Michael Cain's not taking this shit lying down: he's filed a lawsuit against his nation's Red Cross for discriminating against his plasma.

And, rather than simply playing the gay card, McCain's lawyer's using actual logic:

Mr Cain’s lawyer, Peter Tree SC, told the Tribunal that there are gay men who have a much lower risk of HIV than many heterosexuals and that the blood from these men could save lives if it was accepted.

Mr Tree also accused the Red Cross of exaggerating the HIV risk associated with gay sex to “extreme” levels.

“The Red Cross has assisted in perpetuating the stereotype that gay sex is risky and unhealthy,” he said.

Mr Tree went on to say that the Red Cross has known since 2001 that there is no medical evidence to support a ban on men engaging in a range of sexual activities with other men, including oral sex.

“This alone should compel the Tribunal to find that the Red Cross policy is unjustifiable.”

The Red Cross' lawyers claim gay men could be more "altruistic" by realizing the risk they pose. That's some bloody bullshit.

The Catholic Church could be gearing up for a gay battle down under in Australia.

Bishop of Brisbane John Bathersby gave gay-inclusive church St Mary’s in South Brisbane until December to fall in line behind the Vatican, which doesn't coddle queers, or face some stiff penalties.

But St. Mary's priest, Peter Kennedy, doesn't seem to be budging…

CONTINUED »

We never quite know what to make of these stories…

Australian researchers have found suggestive evidence that transgender identities are genetic. From the BBC:

DNA analysis from 112 male-to-female transsexual volunteers showed they were more likely to have a longer version of the androgen receptor gene.

The genetic difference may cause weaker testosterone signals, the team reported in Biological Psychiatry.

However, other genes are also likely to play a part, they stressed.

Increasingly, biological factors are being implicated in gender identity.

Now, we're obviously curious to know why people are gay, straight, trans and the such, but opening up this can of worms also invites genetic manipulation.

For example, if this can be nailed down, so to speak, does that mean women may one day be able to determine prenatally whether or not their child will be trans? If that happens, will said woman abort her "abnormal" baby. Then again, such evidence suggests being trans is, in fact, quite normal. What say you, reader? Should scientists be searching for the reason why people "deviate" from the norm, or should we turn our backs on such research?

What's worse than one anti-gay organization? Seventeen of them - a frightening prospect made real in Australia, where "family" groups have come together to form the "Gender Matters" coalition. And, after putting their hateful heads together, the group has released a series of demands for the gays - and the world.

Most of their requests are pretty standard, like keeping marriage for heterosexuals and prohibiting gay adoption. Beyond that, however, things get pretty wild, like the use of public funds to "cure" the queers.

From Gender Matters' website:

To dispel the current confusion regarding gender issues, and to restore the proper understanding and appreciation of maleness and femaleness, and to protect our children from harm, the following is proposed as a guide to policy makers
…
That public funding be committed to programmes and support networks which assist individuals to overcome gender disorientation pathology.

That it be affirmed that homosexuals, as individuals, should enjoy the same rights as other individuals, but that homosexual relationships not be granted social or legal recognition, since that would promote greater levels of gender disorientation pathology in the community as a whole, and undermine the unique status of marriage.

The group also wants schools to give little boys lessons on how to be masculine. Girls, meanwhile, would get lessons in being - well, girly. Also, all gay people will be terminated.

Psych! Gender Matters didn't really ask for the mass murder of all the gays - but we bet they thought it!

An Australian tribunal wasn't laughing at gun lobbyist Ron Owen's bumper sticker.

CONTINUED »

The ongoing discrimination case against Australia's Red Cross continues - and the organization's allies keep offering outlandish arguments against allowing gay blood donors.

Yes, even more ridiculous than the "screening takes too much time" defense:

US professor Dr Paul Holland, a former blood source executive testifying for the Red Cross, claimed even digital penetration of the nose or ear would justify the lifetime ban his country imposes on gay men.

"That would usually be sufficient to exchange fluid and qualify as sex,” Dr Holland told the Tribunal. When asked if that included gay men who had done nothing more than kissing, Holland replied, “Yes, sir, because they increase their chance of transmitting an infection such as HIV.

Wait, wait - haven't we all been taught that kissing doesn't transmit HIV?

Unless, you know, you drink like 2 gallons of someone's saliva, or something. So, Holland's testimony isn't simply wrong, it's dangerous.

[Image: "Kiss" by Robert Richards.]

Homo hunk Will Fennell, who once groomed the masses on Australia's Queer Eye, again graces the pages of gay glossy DNA.

We thought you'd appreciate seeing some of the shots. Aren't we generous? And isn't he?!