Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chappy

...we are still in the age where most atheists you will run into grew up Christian. We've seen what you see. And we also have very different ideas about which side is fooling themselves.

+1.

[firejuggler]

In france, at least, we have a third-generation of *god-less' people. Anyone born after the second world war has high chance of having receive an atheist education.
My father's parents were protestant , but did not practice, and neither did my father.
My mother's had a catholic upbringing, got to her first communion, but didn't follow.
My sister and I... well we were given a choice : If you want to, go to. neither of us did. My sister children probbably won't educate her children within religion, and neither will I (if I have any).
How terrible would my sister feel if religion ever interfered with her love life?

[chappy]

Problem solved!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3543284.html

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by chappy

Problem solved!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3543284.html

Denying the existence of something which in most people's view quite obviously occurs - in this case homosexual orientation - suggests to me that the person is suffering from being "in denial". It does not take much intuition to think of a possible reason why someone might be in denial about this issue. I feel very sorry for Justice Scalia's son if my hunch is correct.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Denying the existence of something which in most people's view quite obviously occurs - in this case homosexual orientation - suggests to me that the person is suffering from being "in denial". It does not take much intuition to think of a possible reason why someone might be in denial about this issue. I feel very sorry for Justice Scalia's son if my hunch is correct.

I believe that my thoughts on Scalia Fils are similar to yours. If I am correct, I do hope that he manages to dig himself out of the closet one of these days. I have long thought that the most virulent homophobes are likely to be closet cases. However, I can't be terribly sympathetic to someone who is so deeply invested in repression.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by kladner

I believe that my thoughts on Scalia Fils are similar to yours. If I am correct, I do hope that he manages to dig himself out of the closet one of these days. I have long thought that the most virulent homophobes are likely to be closet cases. However, I can't be terribly sympathetic to someone who is so deeply invested in repression.

Well, I have to agree with you that it's hard to be sympathetic, really, with someone who's taken it on himself to do so much unnecessary harm. Perhaps I was just being politically correct when I said I felt sorry for him.

Still, you never know how things can turn out in the future: people who have invested in repression can sometimes see sense and then do what they can to turn it round completely. For example, I was very impressed with the recent apology of John Paulk, and then to a slightly lesser extent that of Alan Chambers, both of whom had been heavily involved as figure-heads in the "ex-gay movement" before acknowledging that they themselves were still gay and that their efforts had caused terrible harm.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Well, I have to agree with you that it's hard to be sympathetic, really, with someone who's taken it on himself to do so much unnecessary harm. Perhaps I was just being politically correct when I said I felt sorry for him.

Still, you never know how things can turn out in the future: people who have invested in repression can sometimes see sense and then do what they can to turn it round completely. For example, I was very impressed with the recent apology of John Paulk, and then to a slightly lesser extent that of Alan Chambers, both of whom had been heavily involved as figure-heads in the "ex-gay movement" before acknowledging that they themselves were still gay and that their efforts had caused terrible harm.

Being good-hearted transcends political correctness. IMHO, you are a powerfully empathetic person, Brian, and feel for people even when you utterly disagree with them.

Your second point about those who recant long-held positions is well taken. There have been some eye-opening turn-arounds lately.

In some ways, your thoughts on this brought to mind this exchange between Frodo and Gandalf.

‘But this is terrible!’ cried Frodo. . . . O Gandalf, best of friends, what am I to do? For now I am really afraid. What am I to do? What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!’
‘Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began the ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.’
‘I am sorry,’ said Frodo. “I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum.’
‘You have not seen him,’ Gandalf broke in.
‘No, and I don’t want to,’ said Frodo, ‘. . . He deserves death.’
‘Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when it comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.' (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994) 65-66.)

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

Being good-hearted transcends political correctness. IMHO, you are a powerfully empathetic person, Brian, and feel for people even when you utterly disagree with them.

+1. (IMHO)

[jasong]

Mod note: Moved from the turmoil-in-Egypt thread

Originally Posted by Brian-E

But, TheMawn, there are other freedoms apart from Economic ones, and I'm not sure that Singapore scores so well here. Section 377A of the Singapore penal code, making sex between two consenting adult males punishable by up to two years in prison, is still in force to this day.

Well, it's prison, so it's a 2-year sex vacation.

Honestly, though, I don't think people should be punished for being homosexuals. I just have a problem with rewarding it.

I think of it as being like tattoos. If you do the deed, be prepared to accept the consequences.

Originally Posted by Re-quoting Ewmayer's post

Recent events in Egypt put President Obama in a tough spot, even if not as difficult as that of deposed Egyptian President Morsi. At least the latter gentleman knows his own mind, even if paying a high price for it, whereas Obama is at wit’s end to articulate where he stands on the sanctity of democracy and its place in American foreign policy.

Mr. Obama is bound by his own words, international law and the expectations of allies, such as Great Britain, not to acknowledge or support coups that overthrow duly-elected governments. For the president, it is an inconvenient truth that Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, accomplished his office through the ballot box and was as constitutionally legitimate as Obama, but for one small fact.

Morsi pushed through constitutional changes that are rather favorable to the fundamentalist thinking of the Brotherhood. Of course, those views about the desired progress of society and place of religion in the equation are hardly simpatico with the left leaning ideas on Harvard Yard and other American temples of the “progressive” movement.

Like most Americans, I have no truck with the ideas of the Brotherhood, but the mob in the streets objecting to Morsi chose methods other than ballots to remove him. Sadly for him, the Egyptian military is neither under civilian control nor primarily financed by the Egyptian government. It gets its manna from the Obama Administration via more than $1 billion annually in U.S. foreign aid...

Looks like Obama has his own "tattoo."

[ewmayer]

@JasonG:

Dude, that is some seriously offensive stuff ... but at the very least do us the tiny courtesy of confining your inane commentary to the nearby thread dedicated to such matters. Also, unless you're speaking from personal experience re. prison, I suggest "talk is cheap", so unless you've actually taken a "prison vacation", you should just STFU.

May I also suggest that gay rights is rather tangential to the goings-on in Egypt? It may be more or less important to the various folks here, but I suspect the vast majority of the folks over there have other issues they are more concerned with just now, such as "staying alive", "whither democracy?", "rule of law", etc.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by chappy

Fourth, have you met any homosexual people? Because they are just people. No better and no worse than anyone else. And until and unless you can come up with something more than "an ancient book seems to tell me that it is bad" and/or "I don't like it cause its icky," as a set of premises arguing the validity of that line, I'm going to feel free to ignore it.

Homosexuality is destructive because it is against God. If it suddenly became a sin to use Firefox, then using Firefox would be destructive because it would be "against God."

I could just as easily argue that the damage against those little girls I molested when I was a teenager was 100% from society, since the problem had nothing to do with forcible rape or any sort of kidnapping.

Sometimes things are immoral simply because God says they are immoral.

Oh, and in regards to that "ancient book." It only makes sense if you believe it was written by people and that God doesn't exist. So instead of being a mis-leading bastard, be honest and say you don't believe in God. Because if God wrote the book, the knowledge is infinitely old, rather than thousands of years old.