Atheist Nexus Logo

LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends


LGBTQI atheists, nontheists, and friends

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

Location: International
Members: 616
Latest Activity: on Tuesday

Welcome to Gay / LGBTQI Atheists & friends!

Discussion Forum

Gay christians.

Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Gerald Payne May 13. 2 Replies

Boycotting Indiana

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Apr 12. 12 Replies

Per Right Wing Watch, The Nuts Are Really Coming after the Fruits

Started by Bertold Brautigan. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Apr 10. 2 Replies

Discrimination by nontheists?

Started by Jacob Dreiling. Last reply by Bertold Brautigan Mar 27. 15 Replies

The Lack Of LGBT Atheists

Started by Neon Genesis. Last reply by Grinning Cat Mar 27. 16 Replies

Priviliged Bickering

Started by Daniel W. Last reply by Susan Stanko Mar 17. 3 Replies

Coming out in your teens.

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Feb 11. 2 Replies

Comment Wall


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

Comment by Grinning Cat on October 15, 2014 at 11:49pm

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.)

Comment by Pat on October 15, 2014 at 9:34am

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. 

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on October 15, 2014 at 9:10am

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.

Comment by James M. Martin on October 14, 2014 at 10:52pm

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?

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.


Members (616)


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Dr. Allan H. Clark replied to Dr. Allan H. Clark's discussion American Center for Law and Justice odd case
33 minutes ago
MagetheEntertainer posted a video

Problems With The Bible Pt 7

In this video I discuss the problems surrounding the story of Moses, the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, the biblical Exodus, and the plagues that Moses suppos...
1 hour ago
Profile IconLibertarian Atheist, Shannon, Misha H. and 3 more joined Atheist Nexus
1 hour ago
George Chase replied to George Chase's discussion On the Nature of Miracles.
1 hour ago
Ted Foureagles replied to Dr. Allan H. Clark's discussion A New Low in Political Rhetoric
1 hour ago
Eric Sergent replied to Kalista Whitney's discussion Was there a particular event in your life that contributed to you becoming atheist?
1 hour ago
Loren Miller replied to Dr. Allan H. Clark's discussion American Center for Law and Justice odd case
2 hours ago
George Chase replied to George Chase's discussion On the Nature of Miracles.
2 hours ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service