LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends


LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends

Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.

Members: 18
Latest Activity: on Thursday

Forum is now open for comments only, due to limited moderation.

The original creator has been absent 8 years.  She may no longer identify as Lesbian or as Atheist, but could still experience discrimination due to being listed as creator of this group.  This group does come up on internet search with this person, and her photo photo, as group creator.  We live in era when discrimination can be expected to increase on many fronts.

I moderated since that time. On several occasions, I requested that another member moderate, but was unable to find a volunteer who would actively moderate content.

Please be aware, posts left active on this group, especially discussion forum, can be hazardous to members, even ones who have been gone for many years.  In most states and countries, there is no protection for LGBT people regarding employment, housing, or employment.  The same is true regarding atheists.  Some members may not even be aware of discrimination, and may not be aware that their old posts and images are still there to come back and haunt them.  Posts and the membership list are visible on internet searches.

There has been at least one case of a member of Atheist Nexus experiencing employment discrimination due to their membership. 

Another member of Atheist Nexus was murdered in India, in 2011 (Ajita Kamal).  As far as I can tell, the perpetrator and motive were never found, but Kamal was a known atheist, and known atheists are frequently targeted for brutal killings in South Asia.

Any member who posts, without having their own photo or name on their screen name and avatar, is expressing implied agreement, by default, about the importance of privacy, even on the internet.

A controversial group needs an active moderator, who will look out for the needs and safety of the members, as much as possible in such a forum.

As has recently been done, posts on Atheist Nexus are subject to screenshots.  They are also be subject to internet search.

I recommend that interested members start a new LGBT group, so that there is no issue with long absent group creator and no longer having a moderator.  Until that time, this group is open for a rolling comment wall.  I am not able to expire comments without closing the entire comment page, due to host program (Ning) limitations on moderation.

Daniel W.

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends to add comments!

Comment by dr kellie on August 20, 2011 at 7:25pm
Ha, I was just thinking of this on Wednesday night when I had to wear my glasses for a fun night out at the gay bar with my bff.  We were in Fort Worthless, and I totally made out with a girl of a different ethnicity.  Hot!  She said she loved my glasses.  Score!
Comment by Daniel W on August 20, 2011 at 6:30pm
Dallas, you say that on the internet, but face it, in person men don't make passes at men who wear bifocals.
Comment by Daniel W on August 20, 2011 at 11:41am
I have to wear bifocals now.  And even then sometimes it's blurry.
Comment by Grace Fitzpatrick on August 20, 2011 at 11:39am
And you didn't go blind?
Comment by Daniel W on August 20, 2011 at 11:37am
I've seen some of them naked. They deserve pity.
Comment by Grace Fitzpatrick on August 20, 2011 at 10:46am
Nope, if I'm saying I have to put up with something really bad like the KKK, they should have to tolerate some mild ribbing.
Comment by Elyse on August 20, 2011 at 10:18am
Did you just compare "Draw Mo Day" to the KKK?
Comment by Grace Fitzpatrick on August 20, 2011 at 9:53am
I think it's wanting special rights that is the problem.  Muslims want to make it against the law to draw Mohummad while enjoying the heck out of blaspheming of other religions.  Another analogy would be Mormons forcing everyone to go without coffee or any type of caffeine because that is a big no-no for them and making drinking coffee against the law.  All other religious groups (including atheists) have to tolerate jokes about their religion or lack of religion in our case.  Frankly, I have to tolerate the Westboro Baptist Church and KKK rallies rallies which I detest, Muslims have to tolerate draw Mo day.  If they didn't make such a huge deal out of every imagined offense, maybe people would loose interest in drawing Mo.
Comment by Darren Taggart on August 20, 2011 at 2:48am

I get that it was a holocaust joke. I'm not trying to show that it was funny.  Other people's reaction whether light or serious doesn't change the facts or improve their position.  There are lots of very serious priests and lots of very humorous oncologists.

I'm sure that a muslim feels very justified in their real offence; it would be wrong though to think that you or I have a monopoly on what 'justifies' offence; people can choose to take offence at whatever they like.  Holocaust 'humour' is tasteless, I agree, and the extermination of people, whether wasteful or not is clearly horrific.  However the point is that why should people care that something offends you?  You haven't actually been damaged by it, have you?  Presumably you can tell the difference between killing people and joking about it can't you?

I'm certainly not telling holocaust jokes and the only thing I'm taking lightly is vicarious offence; I think it's as ridiculous as vicarious responsibility.

My worry would be that some idiot brings in laws to avoid offence, like the old blasphemy laws we had here.

Comment by Darren Taggart on August 20, 2011 at 12:23am

Hi Sentient, I didn't actually see what caused such offence, but you've hit the nail on the head.  When Muslims see pictures of Mo, they don't like it because it 'trivializes' what's going on in their heads and they expect us to all treat the same things the same.  This is a similar hair trigger thing I think. 

It's the people who take vicarious offence; on behalf of others, who expect the same treatment as those actually affected that are trivializing them.  It's like John Prescott (a Labour Peer) getting all offended that his work phone was hacked expecting the same level of sympathy that Milly Dowler's (Murdered school girl whose phone was hacked) family received.  It smacks of not being able to tell the difference and expecting to be indulged.

I think that a lot of the offendees claiming to be offended to the point where they think people are interested, often have no more been affected by the subject of the 'joke' than the teller.  It might be horrifically bad taste to draw pictures of prophets or whatever, but I'm not sure one can even equate the trivialized memories of an 'offended' 30 year old with the actual suffering of those who went through actual horror. If we gayers pandered to the 'offence' taken by others or took serious offence at all the slights against us, maybe we'd be called Dours!


Although maybe I was out when we all agreed on the list of things we're not allowed to joke about.


But then I worry that (apparently) a lack of empathy is a sign of a sociopath...



Members (18)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service