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 Daniel W on October 14, 2014 at 11:58am
I'll have to find the link. One common tator did state that (a) there was decreased funding for CDC and (b) there WAS - a lttle - funding for a study of ehy there is a tendency among Lesbians to be overweight so therefore (c) Ebola spread is because of overweight Lesbians. That doesn't let gay men off the hook, what with expenditures at CDC for a certain viral syndrome that they attribute to us. I cant link via my tablet, sorry.

I got that the meme was related to poverty not Ebola. Poverty in Africa of course being the fault of gay Westerners.... I can't figure that.
Comment by TheraminTrees on October 14, 2014 at 11:27am

Quite, Bertold. I see a piece of rather vile rhetoric, and a whopping great red herring — but the 'intersection' escapes me.

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on October 14, 2014 at 11:21am

I'm having trouble finding any other interpretation as well. How is this an "intersection" between gay rights and ebola?

Comment by TheraminTrees on October 14, 2014 at 11:07am

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.

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 14, 2014 at 10:34am

One intersection between gay rights and Ebola.

Comment by Daniel W on October 11, 2014 at 11:32am

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.

Comment by Pat on October 9, 2014 at 3:28pm

@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.

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on October 9, 2014 at 3:19pm

@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.

Comment by Pat on October 9, 2014 at 3:09pm

Bertold, that's an incredibly interesting take on marriage equality. Splinter of part of the LGBTQ community to adopt the 50's lifestyle of Father Knows Best, and turn them into good little suburbanites. The natural tendency is that once you've got your slice of the American pie, you're no longer so willing to share it with others. And in doing so, the Conservatives make a ally out of a former foe to help them protect their slice, without sharing any more.

Interesting concept. Not so sure I buy it hook, line and sinker. But there may be a piece or two of the bait that's worth chewing on. 

Comment by James M. Martin on October 9, 2014 at 2:59pm

I held that view until it dawned on me that there being nothing essentially wrong with monogamy, it really isn't a reinforcement of heterosexuality for gays to marry. The only objections now are coming from religious bigots, and if I were exclusively gay, I would want to marry if only to poke bigots in the eye. I sincerely doubt there are that many heterosexuals who really think same sex marriage is a bad thing in and of itself. Equality means what it says. Why should heterosexuals enjoy rights that are denied to lgbtq people? This is a democracy. If anti-same sex people want to live in a theocracy, tell them to go to an Islamic country and see how they like it. Finally, climate change and population growth are now threatening the very existence of the earth as a viable place to live. To me, the real heroes are lgbtq people who do not want to have children by donation; better that they emulate straight couples -- if those straight couples are like Brad and Angelina, adopting unwanted children, just as you might adopt a sterilized dog or cat at the pound. (No, of course I am not making a parallel; the bigots with their silly argument that same sex marriage will lead to bestiality are doing a fine job of that. I am only saying that good same sex couples will adopt, not go the ego route with sperm donations from the couple themselves. Think about it, who is the No. 1 backer of the anti-equality movement? If you said Tony Perkins and his Fumbling Research Council, I suspect you are wrong. I think it is either the Mormons or the RCC. Why do they pump so much money into fighting queer people? Because same sex unions are not supposed to produce good little Morons or Caplicks. Without new recruits, these groups will die out. Hence, it is the same old same old, old man Saul Leviticus telling people Gawd doesn't like queers. So my position, why imitate the straights, has evolved over time (as Obama would put it) and that those inclined to marry should be allowed to do so. The bigots want to claim exclusivity because they believe marriage is holy. But marriage is civil as well, and without the right to marry, monogamous gay couples are denied all manner of benefits readily available to straights.


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