The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.
Latest Activity: 10 hours ago
Started by Christina Fiscus. Last reply by Susan Stanko on Sunday.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Janice Rael Jan 18.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Daniel W Jan 18.
Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jan 13.
Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jan 13.
Started by Neon Genesis. Last reply by Scooter Crone Jan 2.
Started by James M. Martin Dec 17, 2014.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by James M. Martin Dec 8, 2014.
Started by James M. Martin. Last reply by James M. Martin Dec 8, 2014.
Started by Pat. Last reply by sk8eycat Nov 21, 2014.
Why The Mormon Church Deserves No Credit For Supporting LGBT Protections (At Least Not Yet)
Mormon Church Wants To Protect LGBT People, But There’s A Catch
How A New Senate Bill Would Protect LGBT Youth From Homelessness And Trafficking
How Anti-Gay Conservatives Plan To Use A Cake Reading ‘God Hates Gays’
Anti-Gay Officials In Alabama Just Lost Their Best Argument Against Marriage Equality
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.
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.
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.
I just ran across quite an interesting counter-argument on another forum. Not sure what I think about this yet really. I had posed this question:
Has anyone ever seen an argument against marriage equality that a.) is not religious and b.) makes sense?
And here's the response:
Gay marriage reinforces heteronormative behaviours. Gays are allowed to be "acceptable" ... if ... they comply with conservative lifestyle norms. Monogamous dating to find "the right one", marriage unto-death-us-do-part, children, suburbs, little league, PTA. Acceptable careers, acceptable friends, acceptable lifestyle choices.The world is full of "queers" beyond monogamous gay couples. Each of them is discriminated against by various aspects of law; inheritance, adoption/custody/etc, next-of-kin rights, along with workplace discrimination, insurance, etc.But gay couples make up the most visible portion of this population. By peeling them away from the rest, the conservatives are able to not only reinforce their own 1950s lifestyle fantasies, but further entrench legal discrimination against anyone different. This delays or even reverses gains made in other areas for other kinds of "queers".(Just as "gays in the military" merely reinforced America's mainstream love-affair with perpetual war. Now you can't hate the baby-killers coz they might be gays, and you don't hate gays, do you?)Without "gay marriage", gays will force the laws and regulations, the rules of institutions like hospitals, to be changed to accept non-hetero and especially non-heteronormative relationships, in order to just have common sense rights that even heteros understand the need for. (A gay man in hospital, his 20yr partner is denied next-of-kin rights, but his 20yr-estranged sibling from a different state is accepted instead. Let them "put a ring on it" and you don't have to recognise their relationship. "If they were a real couple, they would have gotten married, like normal people do.")Gay marriage reinforces hetero marriage, reinforces the conservative movement's gains in the last 30 years. It makes it harder to get reforms that support the whole rainbow of "queer" culture and makes it easier to undermine reforms already hard won.So congratulations on your big win, Conservative America.
Somewhat related: a recent Pew Research Center survey says that despite significantly fewer African-Americans than white Americans supporting same-sex marriage (42% vs. 53%), a majority of blacks (and not whites) say florists, caterers, and other wedding-related businesses should be required to serve all couples (61% vs. 45%).
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2015 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.