The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: yesterday
A TED talk on gay around the world.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Sep 29.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Sep 28.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Aug 27.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jul 20.
Started by Daniel Wachenheim. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 22.
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 Wachenheim. 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.
Pretty shocking, he watches British people. "I don't want to stop". He'll be sorry. Better if he was gay
"What if you had to come out smart the way you come out gay?"
(In light of the disturbing anti-intellectualism in some currents of American politics, I'm also sharing this video in "The Results Are In: America Is Dumb and on the Road to Getting Dumber".)
Marriage equality in the US (as of today), with state sizes adjusted for population... makes the red states that still have marriage bans a lot less imposing!
(Colors as in Wikipedia's map. Click to enlarge somewhat.)
Burke should be taken at his word, e.g. children should not be exposed to "profoundly disordered" relationships. Ergo, children should not be exposed to the Catholic clergy.
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.
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.