LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends

Information

LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends

Nontheist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people & friends.

Location: International
Members: 614
Latest Activity: yesterday

Think Progress LGBT RSS

Loading… Loading feed

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends to add comments!

Comment by Daniel W on March 6, 2011 at 11:35am

Christian Aid group in defence of LGBT people in Africa?  here.

 

But christianity seems to be central to the persecution of LGBT people in Africa, including American evangelical groups.

 

It would be wrong to blame christianity entirely, after all, why concentrate on Africa when Muslim countries are murdering gays, who knows, maybe more.  But I think we need to start at home.  Im not aware of groups in the US supporting the murders of gays in, say, Saudi Arabia (well, when we by gasoline, maybe we are), or Iran, but there are Christian Evangelical groups in the USA implicated in the actions in subSaharan Africa.  Or condemnation belongs with those groups.

 

 

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on March 5, 2011 at 12:07pm

petition for rights of LGBT Africans

 

LGBT Africa

ns are subjected to threat of extortion and violence every day -- even from friends and family members.

Tell the governments of Cameroon, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria and Zimbabwe that LGBT people have the right to live free of fear.

petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/445/759/082/?z00m=19946747

Comment by Geraldo Cienmarcos on March 5, 2011 at 9:13am

just asking

 

How many more teenage suicides and murders of gay people will it take for people to realize that sometimes free speech rights should require a means test of consequences? If public speech is potentially destructive of a targeted groups integrity, should it be curbed? Do people have the right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater?

The absolutist interpretation of the right to free speech is not one held by Germany or Great Britain, where there are laws against public defamation of social groups.

Is this another example of the social norm of acquiescence to religion and religious dogma regardless of the consequences for the physical and psychological safety of individuals?

The Westboro Church is a small fringe group (probably numbering in the 10's of those who participate) whose ideas are not even taken seriously by mainstream respectable Christianity. But so were the Nazi's at one time a tiny but loud fringe group.

  - - Gary

NEWS:

Westboro Baptist Church Promises To 'Quadruple' Down On Protests After Supreme Court Ruling

A leader of the Westboro Baptist Church told reporters Wednesday that the congregation would "quadruple" the number of funeral protests in the wake of a ruling by the Supreme Court, which found that their controversial demonstrations were protected by the First Amendment, ABC News reports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-su...

Comment by dr kellie on March 1, 2011 at 10:23am

Good point, Biped.

 

How about an article about why black people should have separate schools? 

Comment by Daniel W on March 1, 2011 at 8:42am
So if:

"just because something can possibly be offensive does not mean we have the obligation to block the publishing of that material."

and

"The newspaper’s faculty advisor thought the column fell under protected speech; the district is stoutly defending the newspaper’s decision to give Johnson space to foolishly ruminate."

and

“Mr. Johnson’s piece is the expression of his opinion, a right afforded to him and all students through the First Amendment and the Kansas Student Publications Act, which specifically notes that ‘material shall not be suppressed solely because it involves political or controversial subject matter,’

Then someone could also write an editorial promoting, say, that HPV vaccines should be given to the football team, which would greatly reduce their risk for oral cancers due to giving blow jobs to men? And that medically and socially important message would be published and protected?

I don't think, however, that this is Uganda-style hate. Just average Kansas style thinkophobia.
Comment by dr kellie on March 1, 2011 at 8:09am
@James M.- Uh, someone is a fag. 
Comment by James M. Martin on February 28, 2011 at 6:47pm

Withers: High school column calls for no gay dating

By James Withers, contributing editor, 365Gay Blog 02.25.2011 8:29am EST

Those kooky, crazy Kansas children. A Wichita high school newspaper published a column that will elicit tears of joy from the editor of that Ugandan rag Rolling Stone.

The February 11 opinion piece, written by East High School student Colin Johnson, proclaims gay relationships  “just are not normal” and “should be frowned upon.” The commentator decided to prove this by using my favorite Leviticus line about men, knocking boots, and death. He ends the op-ed by arguing same sex dating is counter to a school’s educational mission.

“Same sex dating in high school is not accepted by many, despite the efforts of a few. It is a social disruption in many cases, and should be kept out of school to ensure our educational mission with as little of a distraction as possible.”

He doesn’t say how a school should  keep young mo’s from dating. I’m assuming he doesn’t want his LGBT peers stoned, but Johnson is vague on that point.

The editors, and faculty advisor, of the Messenger have been working overtime to defend themselves.

“We don’t necessarily agree or disagree. It’s one person’s personal opinion,” said editor Jessica Thomas (there are two others). “But just because something can possibly be offensive does not mean we have the obligation to block the publishing of that material.”

The newspaper’s faculty advisor thought the column fell under protected speech; the district is stoutly defending the newspaper’s decision to give Johnson space to foolishly ruminate.

“Mr. Johnson’s piece is the expression of his opinion, a right afforded to him and all students through the First Amendment and the Kansas Student Publications Act, which specifically notes that ‘material shall not be suppressed solely because it involves political or controversial subject matter,’” the district argued in a statement.

Sounds sensible, unless you think some opinions don’t deserve to be heard.

Comment by Daniel W on February 27, 2011 at 9:25am

Sorry about the messed up intro section - the editor is acting weird and I can't change it back!

 

 


Comment by Daniel W on February 27, 2011 at 9:12am
James, I always expect the worst with the Supreme court.  There have been some pleasant surprises, but I don't want to get my hopes up and get the rug pulled out form under me.
Comment by James M. Martin on February 24, 2011 at 6:52pm
Rereading an article about Justice Breyer by Jeffrey Toobin in an old New Yorker I began to speculate on what he might write either as a dissenting or concurring opinion when DOMA reaches the Supremes.  Breyer emerges as a pragmatic liberal of sorts, certainly not knee-jerk or doctrinaire but down to earth and non-partisan, as blind to parties as our statues of Justice.  It is Kennedy who worries me.  As the current swing vote, he can find DOMA constitutional, and as an Irish Catholic, he is likely to do just that.
 

Members (614)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service