I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.this is one of my greatest fears on this subject.Ohmighod. People might think we want to eradicate homophobia! Or racism. Or sexism. The horror. The horror.
no, that this movement is the culmination of some ridiculous seventh sign or something. Or that there really is a movement that seeks to eradicate their religion. It doesn't have to be real in order to be used by the unscrupulous, and some will eagerly play into their hands. I'm sorry if you find this comical, but it's a real concern of mine.
I know a thing or two about phobias, and let me be clear: Homophobia is not one. It's just a fancier term for "intolerance".
if that first is true, it raises a whole lot of questions.
Is this guy a born again? That might account for some of the extremism and politics. If not, and he always felt this way, why are we finding out in 2012 at the earliest? Why not sooner?
We actually found out in 2008. 2012 was simply his latest activity in that regard.
As for his support of the issue, I've only heard conjecture. It wasn't against homosexuals per se, but in regards to the Gay Marriage debate along with some of the tax exempt status of various organizations. Basically, included in the prop and some other areas, the tax exemptions were threatenened. In addition, I believe he was considered either Catholic or Mormon which had a big push in their religion to support Prop 8, along with other items in that arena.
However, Mozilla has been highly connected to the gay rights and LGBT promotions as well as connections to others in that arena (Mozilla project charity which has worked with celebrities and LGBT groups on occasion, Google and their pushes towards equality, etc). The general opinion was even if he was running Mozilla FF (even when not chariman) many of the associations were actually pretty beneficial towards the LGBT movement. That could be why you didn't see as much of a backlash prior to this...though simply giving him a title to reflect the control he had already and complaining about his new title...is pretty ironic.
Fear sells a lot of ad time and buys a lot of votes.
which is is why I worry about the so called crazies.
Just a brief reminder that while there will be some crossover given the ebb and flow of this conversation, this isn't the appropriate thread for religious debate. Please keep the messageboard rules in mind while posting. Thanks!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
no, that this movement is the culmination of some ridiculous seventh sign or something. Or that there really is a movement that seeks to eradicate their religion. It doesn't have to be real in order to be used by the unscrupulous, and some will eagerly play into their hands. I'm sorry if you find this comical, but it's a real concern of mine.I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.this is one of my greatest fears on this subject.Ohmighod. People might think we want to eradicate homophobia! Or racism. Or sexism. The horror. The horror.
Honestly, while I don't want to eradicate religion, I think it's time for a reform to religion.
And honestly, let's face facts. Anything the LGBT community does to further their goal of equality is going to look like we are eradicating religion by definition of our existence.
Recently we had a man get beaten after being asked if he was gay. It came to light that sexuality was not covered in our state's hate crime laws. As a response to this, we held a rally. A rally at which I again spoke. Actually getting in front of people and starting was easier this time. The subject matter a lot harder. I spoke about violence in the trans* community. I also managed to get most of it on video:
Cori speaking on transgender violence
About a minute or so was cut out. In that minute I talk about Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena, and begin talking about CeCe McDonald.
You're a good speaker. Was touching to watch.
I should add all you guys on facebook or whatnot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, while I don't want to eradicate religion, I think it's time for a reform to religion.And honestly, let's face facts. Anything the LGBT community does to further their goal of equality is going to look like we are eradicating religion by definition of our existence.
Only for that subset of religions that includes "discriminate against LGBT people" in their theology. The rest of them will be just fine.
Of course it's not like we haven't been here before. There were, and still are, Christian sects that based their racism in theology. There were and still are Christian sects that based their discrimination against women in theology.
Amazingly, Christianity and even those particular theologies, survived the Civil Rights Movement and several feminist movements.
True, I should amend that. There are many religious people I am friends with that support same sex marriage. At the local college, the LGBTS Alliance Group is run by a Catholic woman who lost her son to anti-gay violence.
In the end, it's not the problem with religion. It's with people. You could replace religion with social darwinism or nationalism or any other doctrine and this could still happen.
For people that support same-sex marriage, but believe marriage should only be between two people, do you consider yourself as someone who, "discriminate[s] against polyamorous people?" Is that how you define your own mindset on the issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For people that support same-sex marriage, but believe marriage should only be between two people, do you consider yourself as someone who, "discriminate[s] against polyamorous people?" Is that how you define your own mindset on the issue?
I couldn't tell you because I'm not against that :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For people that support same-sex marriage, but believe marriage should only be between two people, do you consider yourself as someone who, "discriminate[s] against polyamorous people?" Is that how you define your own mindset on the issue?I couldn't tell you because I'm not against that :)
Yeah, what adults do in their spare time is really none of my business as long as it's not causing anyone any harm.
The only issue I've ever had with polyamorous marriages is that they appear to cause the women involved to be treated as property. I'd have to do research to back that assumption up, because it's only something I've observed in passing glances at polyamorous Mormons. It could be a stereotype that I need to disperse from my mind.
For people that support same-sex marriage, but believe marriage should only be between two people, do you consider yourself as someone who, "discriminate[s] against polyamorous people?" Is that how you define your own mindset on the issue?I couldn't tell you because I'm not against that :)Yeah, what adults do in their spare time is really none of my business as long as it's not causing anyone any harm.
The only issue I've ever had with polyamorous marriages is that they appear to cause the women involved to be treated as property. I'd have to do research to back that assumption up, because it's only something I've observed in passing glances at polyamorous Mormons. It could be a stereotype that I need to disperse from my mind.
It's definitely been common historically. OTOH, so has treating women in monogamous relationships.
That's a very fair point.
For Christians who follow the Bible, it is actually a sin according to Paul to allow homosexual acts or be associated with them. This means one could literally go to Hell for being associated with homosexual acts.The problem with this logic is that if you are a devotee of Kali-Ma or Tezcatlipoca, you can go to hell if you don't ritually strangle or eviscerate a certain number of people a year as an offering to your god.
If you are seriously advocating that it should be okay for Christians to go out and do harm to people because their religion says so, you can perhaps see where the slippery slope leads when you use religious belief to justify doing things that really harm other people. Eg, taking away their civil rights, beating them up or encouraging others to do so, refusing to serve or employ them equally in business, etc.
There's also the issue of selectively "following the bible". Do you also put people to death for eating lobster and wearing polyester? How about it being totes okay to rape underage servant girls as long as you pay some shekels to compensate their owner? That's in the bible too, but I don't really see anyone suggesting it should be a thing any more. Maybe that's because it really shouldn't be.
This is a problem that does NOTHING for the LGBT argument. If you are going to convince far right Christians, you cannot use a flawed argument. Many know their Bible pretty well, and trying to say arguments which are fallacies are not going to help you.
A majority of the Christians rely heavily on the New Testament. In the New Testament, there were many of the laws of the old testament that were no longer required to be followed. For example, the restrictions on food...gone. In fact, a majority of the "old" law was done away in Christ.
However, homosexuality is still against the rules as per the New Testament as well.
Trying to portray their religion incorrectly is about as effective an argument as them stating that all Homosexuals are pedophiles. In a nutshell...really stupid and doesn't (and shouldn't) get you anything but them ignoring anything you have to say.
As far as my advocation? My advocation is to try to have everyone understand where the other side is coming from and have equality for all. Non of this discrimination #&^* that's going around...towards ANY SIDE. You could say I'm an MLK advocate.
The second part is that part of my reasonings in regards to the entire idea is my view of religion. I am horrified by how they've treated the polygamists (so yes, count me as another who is not against polygamy either...per se). There are those who have done terrible things, there is NOTHING that I want more than to stop that. However, there are also those that practice their polygamy with all parties consenting. I don't think that they should be persecuted at all.
If we had a separate thread I could go into the ironies of certain groups which have a history in which their forefathers were persecuted for the same thing...but turn around and do very same thing to others now...but this is not the thread.
The thing is, many LGBT may not realize this, but this is more than just an LGBT fight. The same people against LGBT are against the polygamists and their way of life. I saw as they took the children away from a compound in Texas several years ago, and couldn't help but think...what did these people do that was so wrong except offend someone's religious sensibilities.
HOWEVER...I too am religious. I believe that one should accept Christ, and by accepting his sacrifice they can have their sins washed away and be accepted to heaven. I know many do not believe as I do, but it is my desire that all people would accept Christ. That also funnels into my perspective of the LGBT groupings...and if you noticed I always say the far Christian Right. I take the command from Christ that "ye shall not judge, for that judgement which you give to others, you yourself shall receive."
In my opinion, you can in no way say who's condemned or who's not, as only Christ gets to decide who goes to heaven and who does not. We know we ALL are sinners, so instead of worrying about anothers sin...it is pertinent for me to concentrate on my own (there's that entire...how to pick out the mote in your brother's eye if you have a log in your own as well).
I think you'd be surprised at how many in the LGBT crowd are also Christian or very religious. It does not mean one does not understand the extremes of both sides (both of the LGBT movement, as well as the Christian Right), and in fact I think it helps.
However, part of the difficulties is that the extremes of both sides are who people are listening to (or at least the media) in many instances instead of the more moderates of the groups (who in some small instances, are one and the same). There is good reason why some of the LGBT movement are extreme in their hatred of Christianity (as I previously posted) after their treatment. Their are also reasons why some of the Christian right is so strongly against Homosexuality.
What is needed is to have more negotiation, more talking, and understanding where both sides are coming from in order to see what things they have in common, and build on a common ground instead of trying to make it into a battleground.
When you look at it, I think for those from my perspective, the views of their religion, or opinions are hand in hand with the LGBT fight in many instances...not against it. It's only when you look at the extremes that you see the problems...
And it's the extremes of this fight that were hitting head on in the recent problems with the Mozilla thing...while calmer parties that wanted a different approach were ignored in favor of the media building it's story.
This is an LGBT thread though, and not a religion thread, no matter how closely the matter may be connected for me (and believe it or not, many LGBT christians too...IMO)...so beyond this...now that you understand my take, I think that if we want to get more indepth with my religious views and how it is integrated into the LGBT fight, it should be somewhere else.
However, if you want to change how the other side perceives you, I think you have to present their side correctly first, or you'll only be asking for accolades from people like you, while those who you should be trying to convince ignore us. Further, you can then present their own statements and beliefs in a way which they can see how your fight is also their fight and change to your side.
All in my opinion...of course...as if it had to be said, but sometimes people can get caught up in the moment.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it's a waste of time to appeal to the religious right. Most are too stubborn and set in there ways to change, even in the face of startling facts. Rather, we are better off appealing to those on the fence and those closer to the middle. I do agree that fighting extremism with extremism won't work in this case. I just don't agree with you that those that called for boycotting as well as the CEO's ejection are extreme. Especially when compared to the moderates on the anti-LGBT side.
While I don't know if I agree with his canning or not, I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. I'm sorry I can't sympathize with the CEO, but he went out of his way to harm the community, all under the guise of his beliefs. And hopefully he just leaves the company altogether under the social pressure. Yes, it's petty, I know. But I am not a very kind and good person ;)
Though I'd be a lot more forgiving if he actually made some gesture of apology to the LGBT community. But apparently, that's too much to ask for him, while we apparently have to be respectful of his beliefs. Rubbish.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many know their Bible pretty well
This is false.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't most with opposition to same sex marriage point to Leviticus? I rarely see anyone point to Paul in the New Testament.
No one is trying to portray their religion incorrectly. Quite the opposite, people are pointing out the flaws in how selective people are with their beliefs. We ignore a lot of laws in the New Testament, yet they cannot seem to let this one thing Paul said go. I don't think that someone's bigoted beliefs should be treated different because they have the backing of someone from 2,000+ years ago. It's pretty hypocritical to me.
Don't get me wrong, while I am not a spiritual person, I don't have a problem with religion and religious people. The majority I know are kind people. Many of them know that the Bible has some great things to live by. Don't murder, don't bone your friend's wife, don't be jealous. But they also realize that there are just something things in the Bible that are part of a different time. And that's okay. Reform is fine. It's better for an idea to evolve and reform for the times, instead of stubbornly becoming stagnant. One of my biggest heroes was my old Catholic priest. He was a great man and told me that in life, I should strive to be a good person first and a good Christian second. It always stuck with me and I always felt that more people need to apply this now more than ever, especially towards the LGBT community.
Edited to be more respectful and less "fighty"
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, I think that you are now making huge assumptions about where people are coming from that don't really take into account their possible histories. I was raised in a Christian conservative family. I know I'm not the only one here who comes from a religious background. You talk about understanding, but sometimes what seems like flippant dismissal to you comes from a place of understanding. I understand where the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint is coming from. I've studied the Bible quite a lot (and came to some different conclusions regarding how certain words/phrases are translated and how literally things should be taken than I was taught). I understand what it's like to grow up hating yourself for something that you can't change no matter how hard you try. I understand what it's like to cause a family division just by being. I understand that there are some truly good, compassionate Christians in this world. I also understand that some of the most vicious, petty people I have ever met in my life also call themselves Christians. It would be easy to dismiss the latter as extremists. They're not. They're very, very ordinary and most people would call them moderates. Unless you happen to disagree with them about what color the carpet in the sanctuary should be. Then all bets are off.
It would be easy to dismiss everything I just said by saying that I'm an outlier or an exception. I'm not. There are plenty of other people with similar experiences. But I can't speak for everyone. I can only speak for me. And I'm tired of even the suggestion that there are reasons worth understanding why someone would hate me for existing. Some things are just wrong and that's enough to be said about it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
GreyWolfLord, I think that you are now making huge assumptions about where people are coming from that don't really take into account their possible histories. I was raised in a Christian conservative family. I know I'm not the only one here who comes from a religious background. You talk about understanding, but sometimes what seems like flippant dismissal to you comes from a place of understanding. I understand where the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint is coming from. I've studied the Bible quite a lot (and came to some different conclusions regarding how certain words/phrases are translated and how literally things should be taken than I was taught). I understand what it's like to grow up hating yourself for something that you can't change no matter how hard you try. I understand what it's like to cause a family division just by being. I understand that there are some truly good, compassionate Christians in this world. I also understand that some of the most vicious, petty people I have ever met in my life also call themselves Christians. It would be easy to dismiss the latter as extremists. They're not. They're very, very ordinary and most people would call them moderates. Unless you happen to disagree with them about what color the carpet in the sanctuary should be. Then all bets are off. ** spoiler omitted **
It would be easy to dismiss everything I just said by saying that I'm an outlier or an exception. I'm not. There are plenty of other people with similar experiences. But I can't speak for everyone. I can only speak for me. And I'm tired of even the suggestion that there are reasons worth understanding why someone would hate me for existing....
This is exactly my point. We keep being told to be respectful of their beliefs and not be extremists. But, by the definition of their beliefs, the existence of LGBT is a sin and crime against God. This is the cut and dry belief in the bible that's in Leviticus and spoken by Paul. How can you expect us to respect a belief that essentially condemns our very existence as human beings? How can we be such terrible extremists when their most moderate people still view us as sub-human and want us to not have the same legal rights as others? This is like telling me to respect some white supremacist's beliefs that I am a subhuman because I'm not white and shouldn't have the same legal rights as others.
And that's what infuriates me the most. Being told to smile and turn the other cheek every time someone brings us down. Being told to be understanding to people that literally believe we are scum and somehow need to be saved. Their bigotry, whether driven by hatred or good intentions, is still hurting us. Just because they have the backing of an influential religion thousands of years old doesn't mean I have to respect their beliefs, any more than the beliefs of a klan member or chauvinist.
It's not respectful perse, but understanding what causes their belief.
I've never seen any Christian right convinced because someone brought up the rules of the Old Testament for the exact reasons I told you.
On the otherhand, I've seen some pretty hateful people talked to by the LGBT leaders and come to a negotiation because those leaders understood where the haters were coming from and found common ground for them to understand a common point of view.
When you tell someone something patently false about their religion, that's the first step for them to count your opinion as not worth listening too. It's a similar tactic they use (calling one who is homosexual as having a mental illness or other items) instead of looking more at a more truthful aspect.
This type of pointing fingers and trying to make things up helps no one...and only serves to agitate both sides.
As far as I know, not a single court case has been won by trying to tell the judge that the far right believes in Leviticus and that's why the law is invalid. They are won by pointing out the similarities to other situations that LGBT, Christians, and all Americans (or Europeans in some nations) experience and deserve. It's showing the respect of others, and asking for that respect ourselves. It's about equality...not trying to make up excuses and accuse the other side.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it's a waste of time to appeal to the religious right. Most are too stubborn and set in there ways to change, even in the face of startling facts.
This is the point. The 'religious right', whatever the religion, is a perspective where the 'Truth' of their religion trumps reality itself!
Trying to persuade them with, well, reality is a waste of time. They can only be persuaded by religious doctrine, skewed toward their taste. To be honest, I don't feel the need to try and twist my mind to match the vision of unreality in someone else's head and try to apply it to reality.
The world of Golarion is an analogy. We can talk for hours about the political situation in Galt, the demonic incursions into the Worldwound, the implications for mortals attempting to pass the test of the Starstone, and what did really happen to Aroden?
But if I were to try to pass a law in real life, making it a crime to engage in sexual activity with a person of a different race or the same sex or whatever, on the grounds of 'Aroden said so', how could the real world take that seriously?
How can the real world be expected to refute my claims by saying that, actually, Aroden said something else? Reality shouldn't have a burden of satisfying the demands of every unreality, or even any unreality! It should only have to contend with real life.
To be clear, just because someone has an invalid reason for supporting a law, doesn't necessarily mean the law itself is invalid since there may be other valid reason for supporting a law. I mean if someone said stealing is wrong because the tooth fairy said it was wouldn't make the rest of society go, "Oh, the tooth fairy? really? What a bunch of rubbish, so now we have to make stealing legal."
To the guy in question, I'd offer a couple of thoughts. First, given that nobody really seems to know his reasons, I'd suggest that the issue isn't a defining feature of him. He hasn't apparently done a lot of discussing the issue publicly, which is what people who it is a big issue tend to do. Secondly, while $1,000+ may be a lot of money for some people, I doubt it is for this person. Probably it is the equivalent to me dropping $0.50 in a Salvation Army kettle (oh no, they hate LGBT folks). My point is trying to describe this guy as the new Phelps is way off target and tends to be a bit of Chicken Little attitude. There is no indication in his professional life he has even mistreated anyone, suggesting that he'd suddenly start treating LGBT working for the company poorly as CEO seems to be a bit hyperbolic.
This does bring up a thought of the current state of affairs. I honestly don't know what it was like during the height of the civil rights movement. The impression I get though was that it was more about policy and less about the people behind and running the policy. Now though, it seems to be at least as much about the individuals as it is about the policies themselves. Basically the difference between "THIS is wrong" vs. "Not only are YOU wrong, but YOU are an A*****E!" I'm not suggesting such an approach is wrong, I certainly understand if individuals are directly effected by negative policies feeling justified in targeting individuals on the other side of the issue.
... the right drums up the same kind of backlash ...
Hardly a ringing endorsement to such behavior. Also, I'd suggest claims of "the right" is about as meaningful as the "Gay mafia". Neither is a monolithic group of people.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, homosexuality is still against the rules as per the New Testament as well.
Speaking as a Christian myself, this point is very much debatable.
Just to keep in mind: Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus ever say one word at all about same-sex relationships.
Nowhere.
Not. One. Word.
There are exactly three verses in the New Testament that could conceivably be read as condemnation of homosexuality. All are in letters from Paul. All are based on translations of Hellenistic Greek words that are known from no other sources. These words were obviously known to Paul and to his contemporaies, but their meaning today cannot be fully known-- meanning has to be gleaned from socio-historic reconstruction, context, etc.
These passages have been translated into English in the past (notably 400 years ago in the King James Bible) into today's "clobber texts." But these translations are not definitive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could have sworn Jesus kinda muttered out of both sides of his mouth on the old pacts with God and the new pacts with God, saying that the old stuff still flew but the new stuff was an addendum....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discussing religion with fanatics is never useful. See, people become fanatic the very moment they choose to define their worldview on the basis of just one narrative. What this means, more practically, is that anything that goes against that narrative is PER DEFINITION wrong. Their every ounce of self-worth is tied to that narrative, and yes, some of them would cast out their own children if the children went against that narrative in some way. Compared to that, you are not even a fly buzzing in their ear. It behooves us all to be careful never to adopt such a narrative ourselves, never to become so certain of the world, and never to simplify our lives and thoughts so much.
Besides, they don't know their beloved bible, often they haven't even read it at all. When you discuss with them about Jesus, it's usually the miracles they consider important, not what he said or did. If you discuss the old testament with them, they have not even the slightest clue. See... the OT religion is a matter of a deal between God and God's chosen people. They are the ones who need to follow his laws, everyone else is heartily invited to die in a fire. Even today, the jews do not proselytize. That wasn't part of their covenant with God. Jesus drew up a NEW covenant with God, this time for ANYONE who followed him, and THAT is the covenant everyone not-jewish is invited to join. Now, if you count through the things Jesus says we should do, he specifically brings up the ten commandments, he commands charity, turning the other cheek, and treating others as you would have them treat you - all in all a very different prospect from the Leviticus lists of reasons to kill people. He does say that he hasn't come to change a single letter of the law, though... which makes it complicated. It's still safe to say, however, that IF you want to count parts of the Leviticus commandments as relevant, you sort of have to base that on Jesus not changing the law - at which point you should be taken to task about why you're not killing lots and lots of people as the rest of Leviticus demands.
There are parts of the bible that are absolutely terrible. At some point, the very reason it has survived all this time is because people wanted to bear witness about very important things they have seen. One of these things is Jesus and his message, according to christians everywhere, THE indisputably most important part. So, when Jesus says that we should treat each other as we want them to treat us, and tells us to turn the other cheek even to someone who hit us, and thank our enemies for persecuting us, and clearly shows that he saw everyone around him as HUMANS, messages that do not conform well to that are simply not that important. Certainly not important enough to make a political stink about today.
Did not mean to derail the conversation into a religious discussion.
I was showing that it's only a small group on either side that seem to get the majority of the media attention, while there are many who are more moderate. I was also showing that Christians can also be part of the LGBT movement and vice versa.
More to point out, discussing and trying to say something is a flaw of someone's religion does no good.
Saying someone believes in certain laws, when in fact they probably don't...won't win any court cases, won't win any public opinion, and has never really brought any success to the LGBT movement or equal rights.
More often, finding a common ground which speaks of respect and equality for everyone is where the advances come from, not some argument over our bibles.
Did not mean to derail the conversation into a religious discussion.
I was showing that it's only a small group on either side that seem to get the majority of the media attention, while there are many who are more moderate. I was also showing that Christians can also be part of the LGBT movement and vice versa.
More to point out, discussing and trying to say something is a flaw of someone's religion does no good.
Saying someone believes in certain laws, when in fact they probably don't...won't win any court cases, won't win any public opinion, and has never really brought any success to the LGBT movement or equal rights.
More often, finding a common ground which speaks of respect and equality for everyone is where the advances come from, not some argument over our bibles.
Fanaticism always sells. It is a simplistic world to live in. You don't have to doubt. That in itself is worth the world to many of these people. And while many others are convinced of various things, their doubt and that they accept having it means they can be decent people.
My discussion about religion and the bible is merely to point out that theirs is a fractured and inconsistent narrative. They will not be convinced. But maybe... Nobody here is trying to? Free country, and all that. These last few years have seen a more mature criticism against organized religion as a concept, and discussions like this one are part of that criticism. If anyone is trying to convince anyone else of something, it is that being fanatic is a Bad Idea (tm). Pointing to the people who are and showing that they don't even understand their own narrative builds into that.
Equality and respect for everyone is precisely what these fanatics do not agree with. There is no, indeed, there CAN be no, common ground. They will not change in this. If there is one thing everyone aiming for tolerance can't accept, it is intolerance. Meaning, we must let them have their views, but draw the line at where these views hurt others. That happens the very instant they try to make laws out of their own religious convictions. And... Yes. Someone who thinks it is okay to make laws to prevent adults who love one another from marrying IS a fanatic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't like the idea of giving everyone a participation award and saying that "oh, I'm a tolerant person, so I'll tolerate your insistence that I'm a subhuman and I should die so that we can all just get along!" Some views are harmful and should not be tolerated.
I don't care what holy text you're (general "you") reading from, if it tells me that I should stone my daughter because she was sexually assaulted (and thus her social value has been stripped from her) [Deuteronomy 22:20-21], that I should kill folks who don't believe the same interpretation of a god's words that I do [Deuteronomy 13:6], that women should be treated as half persons [1 Timothy 2:12], that folks of different cultural and racial backgrounds should be enslaved because they're "lesser people" [Leviticus 25:44-46], or the horrifying punishment dealt to you if you fail to follow the rules set down in Leviticus [Leviticus 26:27-30] then I really can't take that holy book seriously, or the "opinions" of those who do and try to use it as a moral handbook.
And that's not even covering my detest for the book of Exodus, but this isn't an appropriate place to discuss that.
Now, there are some really rad Christians out there, and they disregard the creepy and terrible stuff in the bible and focus more on the positive stuff, and I'm 1000% behind those folks. But whenever someone says or does something terrible and tries to hide behind the bible, it angers me.
No, I should not have to practice "religious tolerance" to someone's hateful views.
They need to step out from behind their holy books and own up to their poisonous opinions and realize that there are countless decent human beings out there who have read that book and drawn something positive from it, and that it's their fault that they're degrading society, not the bible's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An oldie but goodie from the Onion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An oldie but goodie from the Onion...
for some reason, I can't help but see God as Rick and Jesus as Morty from Rick and Morty.
Someone who thinks it is okay to make laws to prevent adults who love one another from marrying IS a fanatic.
So people who support laws that limit the number of spouses to only 2 are fanatics? Or is it impossible for more than 2 people to be in love?
So it looks like some friends want a ladies night soon. I'm not sure where to go or what to do. Any suggestions? (Yes, I'm trying to shift away from religion before it gets bad.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no, that this movement is the culmination of some ridiculous seventh sign or something. Or that there really is a movement that seeks to eradicate their religion. It doesn't have to be real in order to be used by the unscrupulous, and some will eagerly play into their hands. I'm sorry if you find this comical, but it's a real concern of mine.I think it basically validates the fears of a lot of religious people -- Some of them think that we're not out to get equal rights, but that we're out to eradicate viewpoints we disagree with.this is one of my greatest fears on this subject.Ohmighod. People might think we want to eradicate homophobia! Or racism. Or sexism. The horror. The horror.
Honestly, while I don't want to eradicate religion, I think it's time for a reform to religion.
And honestly, let's face facts. Anything the LGBT community does to further their goal of equality is going to look like we are eradicating religion by definition of our existence.
Recently we had a man get beaten after being asked if he was gay. It came to light that sexuality was not covered in our state's hate crime laws. As a response to this, we held a rally. A rally at which I again spoke. Actually getting in front of people and starting was easier this time. The subject matter a lot harder. I spoke about violence in the trans* community. I also managed to get most of it on video:
Cori speaking on transgender violence
About a minute or so was cut out. In that minute I talk about Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena, and begin talking about CeCe McDonald.
You're a good speaker. Was touching to watch.
I should add all you guys on facebook or whatnot.
Please feel free to add me! That goes for anyone. And thanks for the feedback. I feel it is my responsibility as a very out transgender person to spread awareness.
Someone who thinks it is okay to make laws to prevent adults who love one another from marrying IS a fanatic.So people who support laws that limit the number of spouses to only 2 are fanatics? Or is it impossible for more than 2 people to be in love?
Heh. Forgive me. I should naturally have been clear and added "unmarried" to my sentence. Seriously? That's the best you can do?
Heh. Forgive me. I should naturally have been clear and added "unmarried" to my sentence. Seriously? That's the best you can do?Someone who thinks it is okay to make laws to prevent adults who love one another from marrying IS a fanatic.So people who support laws that limit the number of spouses to only 2 are fanatics? Or is it impossible for more than 2 people to be in love?
to be fair, people into poly have a problem being accepted too, as noted above.
So it looks like some friends want a ladies night soon. I'm not sure where to go or what to do. Any suggestions? (Yes, I'm trying to shift away from religion before it gets bad.)Bowling?
I was going to say that...
Ladies night wouldn't be ladies night without a visit to toys in babeland.
So it looks like some friends want a ladies night soon. I'm not sure where to go or what to do. Any suggestions? (Yes, I'm trying to shift away from religion before it gets bad.)
wait for you, or for the ladies
or are you a ladyin any case the answer is: lazy river
Maybe you should get them into Pathfinder ;)