The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: on Saturday
A TED talk on gay around the world.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat on Saturday.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 20.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 22.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 12.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Apr 9.
Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Mar 30.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Susan Stanko Mar 7.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by k.h. ky Jan 31.
Started by Loren Miller. Last reply by Loren Miller Nov 18, 2015.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Oct 26, 2015.
On the Catholics and their new "welcoming stance" - RD ran an article today about the bishops being "more welcoming" to lgbts. This really makes me want to puke. Like we should be grateful for their tolerance of our perversion? Here's part of the commentary:
The new language is nonetheless a welcome change for LGBT Catholics, who obviously weren’t thrilled at being referred to as “intrinsically disordered,” though that does remain the official doctrine of the church. “That positive language is more affirming and will give many people hope. It is much more respectful, and offers a sense of welcome that LGBT people have been seeking for decades,” said Marianne Duddy-Burke of DignityUSA.
What idiots would seek a welcome from one of the most evil organizations on the face of the earth? Continuing:
It’s also somewhat miraculous that there was enough agreement amongst the bishops on the more welcoming language, despite the presence of obvious holdouts like Cardinal Raymond Burke. In response to the story of a long-married Catholic couple who had reportedly moved the bishops with their story about friends who welcomed their gay son and his partner home for Christmas, Burke told LifeSiteNews that children shouldn’t be exposed to “profoundly disordered” relationships:
We wouldn’t, if it were another kind of relationship — something that was profoundly disordered and harmful — we wouldn’t expose our children to that relationship, to the direct experience of it. And neither should we do it in the context of a family member who not only suffers from same-sex attraction, but who has chosen to live out that attraction, to act upon it, committing acts which are always and everywhere wrong, evil.
Imagine the horror! Young people exposed to direct experience of queerism, always and everywhere wrong, evil. Fuck you very much for your new "acceptance," Catholics.
You could see the GOP-far right-evangelical &c. attack on Obama for Ebola coming. Before the Christian missionaries came home and were cured (dog and pony show, but by whom and why?) the Republicans were bitching about spending good tax money to treat a disease that seemed to accomplish a Scroogian and therefore acceptable ending: loss of a few thousand African lives. Wipes out everything done by George W. Bush to stop HIV in that continent, but hey, at least he got credit for something. Almost overnight, though, the GOP shifted tactics, arguing that Obama's fault was in not doing enough early enough. Since when did that party nefrain from blowing hot and cold at some point in a debate?
Quite, Bertold. I see a piece of rather vile rhetoric, and a whopping great red herring — but the 'intersection' escapes me.
I'm having trouble finding any other interpretation as well. How is this an "intersection" between gay rights and ebola?
If the 'A bunch of rich gay westerners want to discuss equality?' is supposed to be some insinuation about gay people lacking perspective in some way because they want basic equal rights, then I would find that a truly revolting opportunistic slur — where, in fact, the shame would belong to the person who cynically uses a crisis to attack gay people.
I'm phrasing in the conditional because I'm looking for another interpretation that I might be missing, but I'm not finding one.
One intersection between gay rights and Ebola.
On GC's bar graph - interesting statistic. In a way - kind of uplifting, thinking that progress in social attitudes could follow changes in protection odd civil rights and equality. Kind of depressing, in that despite decades of civil rights law and other progress, a lot of people, including at least a few police officers, still think it's a good idea to shoot young black men armed, only with sandwiches and candies. In 60 years, will there be progress? I'll be dead then... too late to see.
For Bertold, the idea that gay marriage could reinforce conservative values is interesting. I would leave that one up to politicians and political activists and pundits. When I married, it wasn't after a lifetime of monogamous dating "to find the right one" although I wanted that from an early age. This was my 3rd long term relationship - now 18 years - and the others were interspersed with a lot of exploring, adventure, heartbreak, fear - the age of incurable AIDS, police entrapments, and other issues. If not for my own over-idealistic ideas about monogamy, I might have been saved some heartbreak early on - why did I think my partner would want me and only me for life, and why did that not happening, have to leave me feeling so heartbroken? Why did I think I needed to hang on and "save" and alcoholic? And a sweet, but abusive, talented but meth addicted doctor, when he was dying of AIDS, despite his promiscuity behind my back? Why couldn't I have been more accepting, and at the same time more assertive about what makes me, me? My false ideas about monogamy - interesting term in my case, since it should have been "mono-andry" - and lack of emotional intelligence and insight - were part of what made life so hard. I don't think most LGBT people will take on a conservative view of marriage, but rather might open more nonLGBT people to the ideas that sometimes, "enforcement" or expectation of monogamy in marriage might be unrealistic and harmful, but there is still emotional, financial, security, love and other motivation to be married in a mono-committment.
I hope that people develop a more nuanced idea of what "marriage" is, or can be, more varied, more mutually supportive, as a result of being exposed to LGBTI marriages. And as a result, if Ward Cleaver strays with Fred Flintstone, and June with Barney Rubble, but they still find that they love one another and want to make a go of it, they can shed the idea of absolute perfection and ownership, and think about what the emotional work that they need to do and the root causes of both their dependencies, and their occasions when they don't live up to expectations.
@Bertold. I'll agree the evangeloids won't be inviting gay and lesbian couples over for the Sunday bar-b-que "anytime soon." However, over time, it may be a different story. Especially once the right wing has dreamed up a new "enemy"to demonize. Kind of like the proles in Orwell's 1984 turning their hatred from Eurasia to Eastasia on queue when they're told to. Same as the tea party.
@Pat - Pretty much what I thought too. There is a glitch in the theory though - the theocrats want Ward and June, not Ward and George, so even if Wally and the Beave grow up toeing the line and acting all "normal" and everything, the faithful ain't gonna be sharing their tea and crumpets any time soon.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Update Your Membership :
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2016 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.