Comment

Comment by Kimberlee Williams on May 6, 2011 at 5:06pm

Wow, this is absolutely crazy!!!

Comment by Sentient Biped on May 2, 2011 at 9:41pm

Geraldo, interesting.  Somewhere I read that Iran does forced gender reassignment for gay men, somehow when they "become" women then they can marry men and be in compliance with Sharia.  Still, this seems different.

 

Nerd - that's a bad turn of events, I think.  St. Louis isn't exactly LGBT friendly, from my observations.  It's not exactly interracially friendly, either.  Needs an infusion of friendliness-potion.

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on April 28, 2011 at 10:33am

BBC News: Transgender alowed new category on forms in Pakistan.

 

This seems amazing!! In Pakistan?!! And transgender people are still discriminated in many so called "Western

Democracies" Is this prejudice or another form of narrow categorization and discrimination? Or a sign of openess? I

expect someday that there will be 3 categories on forms. Male. Female. Other. - Gary

BBC News:
Pakistan has taken the landmark decision to allow transsexuals to have their own gender category on some official

documents.

The country's Supreme Court has ruled that those Pakistanis who do not consider themselves to be either male or

female should be allowed to choose an alternative sex when they apply for their national identity cards. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13192077

 

Comment by Sentient Biped on April 24, 2011 at 5:10pm

OK, I know it's "Amazing Grace", a hymn that I normally hate.  And some of the video takes place in a church.  But still, sweet.  Really, really sweet.

 

 

Comment by Marx on April 24, 2011 at 8:37am

A friend sent me an article indicating that the pope has declared that "Humanity isn't random product of evolution".

The people who wrote the bible would be considered to be extremely ignorant if they suddenly appeared in our time.  Their knowledge of how the world works was so limited.  At the time when Darwin published, humans knew vastly more than the writers of the bible.  Scientists today know vastly more than Darwin.  The wealth of knowledge that we have gained since Darwin's time does not refute the concept of random evolution with natural selection, but instead brings forth more and more evidence, year after year, that homo sapiens are indeed the wondrous product of random evolution honed by natural selection. 

 

For the pope to say that it is wrong to think at some point "in some tiny corner of the cosmos there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it." simply demonstrates his ignorance of the real knowledge we have about our world.  In fact, homo sapiens are in a tiny corner of a rather plain galaxy in the cosmos and we have a vast amount of evidence that all life on this little speck of dust we call Earth evolved from single celled life forms through the replication of RNA and DNA and that occasional mutations in the copying sequence of the RNA/DNA is how life evolved into the life forms we see on this planet today.  To think that there is some divine plan behind all this may be a comforting thought to a lot of people, but, unfortunately, there is no evidence for such belief.  In fact, the evidence points away from a divine creator.  I have not heard one credible argument or seen one piece of evidence to explain how or when, through the course of evolution, homo sapiens suddenly were endowed with a “soul”, or, as the pope states, “rationality”.  Why would the tool of rationality not evolve along with the other traits that make homo sapiens such an amazing animal?  We can certainly see the survival advantage of evolving the ability to be increasingly rational in our encounters with the environment and with each other.

 

The pope goes on to say, "If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature," "But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason."  I find it sad that some people choose to make sense of life by believing in some higher power.  I think the world would be much better off if we found meaning in life through our actions - actions that create meaning for us.  Acting in a kind and thoughtful manner to all we meet, being reasonable and considerate in our intercourse with others, helping those who have less than we, bringing light and understanding, even wonder, to others through education, all of this is what brings meaning to life, is what makes sense of life.  We may be here by a chance of nature, but what we do while we are here is what matters, is what brings meaning and sense to our lives and the world.  Also, to say that there was creative, divine reason there at the beginning, must mean that god lost his mind shortly thereafter, because the record of life on this planet is one of chaos and extinction.  Approximately 99 percent of all life that ever existed on this planet is now extinct.  This is the product of creative, divine reason?  Hardly.  It is the harsh reality of the natural evolution of life on a volatile and often hostile planet. 

Comment by Sentient Biped on April 21, 2011 at 10:29am

Dharun Ravi now indicted for harrassment, invasion of privacy, and other charges, in the gay baiting suicide death of Tyler Clementi. I do wonder why his accomplice, Molly Wei, is not also indicted. They may have had different roles in the situation.

It does show how times have changed. In the 80s when I was a grad student at Purdue University, the local police would go to the "cruising" spots, pretend to be cruising, and entrap men. They would arrest them, and it would be published in the local paper prior to the court date, so even if found innocent, they were outed to the community and their employers. And to their families, since a lot of them were married.

Even though there are a lot of differences between that and the Tyler Clemente case, what strikes me most is that the harrasser is now demonized and has lost their place in society. The bad part is that the harrassed is dead.

Comment by Dominic Florio on April 16, 2011 at 11:49pm

I think you are right on the money Marx.  It would be like saying that in 1823, a German man, who was married to a British woman, living in a certain place, at the age of ?, having a child with a disability, invented...

There should not be a judgement made on this individual that is based on bigotry, but all of this information gives us historical background of who, what, why, and how this person got to the place in which he arrived.

All of our experiences shape who we are and what we do, even if the facts are negative, in our perspective.  For example, I am a big fan of Thomas Jefferson, but I am not happy about the fact that he had slaves.  But, I consider that information, givent hose times, and the mentality and culture in that time of history.

The past week, information surfaced about the discovery of a caveman, who was probably gay or transgender.  Unfortunately, in the mind of the bigot, we are just trying to justify our sin.  But, I think it an exciting find.

If you really think about it, why am I happy about this?  Although I am completely out, and completely comfortable with who I am, my life is still being debated.  We all seek validation, and we all appreciate positive information about who we are, and where we came from.

Comment by Marx on April 16, 2011 at 3:06pm

Hi everyone,

I haven't posted for a while, so I thought I would put my two cents in on this one.  I think I understand what Mike is saying, about how nice it would be if people did not care about the sexual orientation of historic figures.  I completely agree with this.  However, this is not the same as saying that we should not know or write about their sexual orientation. I do not get the impression that he is saying that.  Dom is right on the money with his comments about the importance of the knowledge of the sexual orientation of historical characters.  I do not think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive.  We can and should have historians write honestly about the relationships of famous people and, at the same time, wouldn’t it be wonderful if our society had evolved to a level where people reading these accounts did not pass judgment on them – did not care, one way or the other.  Do I understand you guys correctly, or is there something that I am missing?

Comment by Sentient Biped on April 16, 2011 at 12:24pm

I fall on the side of revealing these relationships as well.  The more people know that there are respected, talended, honored, heroic, amazing people who also happen to be not-purely-heterosexial, the more acceptance there is.  Then being LGBT is less of an issue.

Comment by dr kellie on April 16, 2011 at 9:16am

I agree with Dominic.  Why should we be any different?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 128
• 129
• 130
• 131
• 132
• …
• 201
• Next ›
• Page