kiaa: (devil)
[personal profile] kiaa
There are several claims that we frequently hear from conservative homophobes, so let's see where they lead us:

1) Gays are depraved, pervert and degraded, they are comitting a sin.
2) Gays shouldn't be allowed to raise children, because they'd spread their depravity to the next generations.
3) Gays don't procreate, therefore they don't contribute with anything to population growth, which is a violation of the main function of the family that God gave us.

If we're to follow the logic in these three statements, I'd ask why would anyone want such depraved, pervert and degraded people to procreate, and spread their depravity to the next generations. You can't both have the gays contribute to population growth AND eliminate the spreading of depravity, can you?

So, what do conservative homophobes really value more - piety, or procreation? If it's the latter, then aren't they encouraging the spreading of debauchery? If it's the former, then aren't they mocking God's intention for the union between man and woman?

Of course, all of what I'm saying would be valid, unless we assume gays can't change and become "normal" (!?) again. But, unlike the reversed (the actual coming out of gays as such), I've yet to see any gay woman or man turning straight. Have you?

Homophobes aren't too bright, are they?
[identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com

Aus PM Kevin Rudd pro-GLBT rights_cropped

First, let's start with a speech given by (sadly) former Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

Read more... )

[identity profile] farmerz-agent.livejournal.com
I remember as a teenager my mother making me read books by television evangelist about Satanism because she didn't like my comic book collection. To be fair it was the Marvel Inferno cross over series for you comic book geeks. That was rather evil looking
But stack them up against Westboro Baptist Church....
This is just too wonderful not to share.
The Satanic Temple, a burgeoning community of worship devoted to the Dark Lord, has performed a “Pink Mass” over the grave of Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelps Jr.’s mother. The Pink Mass is a Satanic ritual performed after death that turns the deceased's straight spirit into a homo one—it’s not unlike the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead

http://m.vice.com/read/satanists-turned-the-founder-of-the-westboro-baptist-churchs-mom-gay?utm_souce=vicefbus


I, like almost everyone, hates the Wesboro Baptist Church. My wife was a Baptist and I LOVE going to Baptist church service its fun and positive and uplifting. NOTHING like these evil weird hatefilled, flag stomping, clowns.

Would you tithe to a Satanic church just to help them fund their 'pink mass'?

Check out the pictures pretty sexy.
[identity profile] luvdovz.livejournal.com
We've had quite a debate around here the other day about the frightening prospect of people marrying donkeys, dogs laying with cats, and all that apocalyptic stuff that obviously scares the shit out of some people. Well, some in the audience might've felt shocked and appalled by some of the responses, and they may have found themselves scratching their heads in dismay, wondering where did all that homophobia suddenly come from in some particular societies.

So let's try to put this into perspective, and maybe we could take a step slightly closer to the answer.

At the end of May, the deputy director of the regional airport in the Kamchatka peninsula in the Russian Far East was attacked by unidentified individuals and fatally stabbed multiple times. The local police started an investigation, their primary version about the motivations for the assault being the "non-traditional sexual orientation" of the 38 year old man. Just a few weeks earlier, a similar case had happened in Volgograd, where a 23 year old man was tortured and brutally murdered because of his sexual orientation. Now, the LGBT community is blaming this alarming trend on Russian politics and Russian politicians (among other things). And indeed, things have been moving into an awkward direction for quite a while, as far as gay rights in Russia are concerned - the "advocating in favor of the gay threat" now being officially a crime, and hatred for gays and lesbians being encouraged among the general populace by the very people of power themselves.

The most recent example )
[identity profile] dv8nation.livejournal.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.


A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.

When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.



Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said.


If this all shakes out it certainly could have a very large impact on how we talk about homosexuality. Not that I think that people who are firm in disliking homosexuals will come around due to this. But this study could put a big hole in the "Homosexuality is a choice," argument. And the "cure homosexuality" folks' ideas as well.

While more study will certainly have to be done, I can't help but wonder just how a firm answer on the origins of homosexuality might mean. I recall in college two friends of mine got into a heated argument about this very thing and afterwards tried not to be in the same room if it all possible. I'd really like to think that answer here might prevent that from happening to others.

Also, if it is all due to the brain I can't help but wonder if this might lead to homosexuality being put back in the books as a medical condition. I don't see great odds of that happening, but it's still something to think about.

[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

"After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.

An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy.
"
---

I know, first thing many would think of as a response would be that the Boy Scouts, being a private club, should feel free to do as they please. On the other hand though, it's beyond me why the federal government would continue to fund an organization like this, in light of their outright discriminatory policies.

More specifically... )
[identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
Until quite recently, the word "homophobia" seemed like an oxymoron to me. I had no sense of how deep the fear actually runs. In fact, I considered it to be a self-referential fear such as the fear of being discovered. People who attack homosexuals are themselves latent homosexuals who fear that others will find them out. Although there may be some truth in this interpretation of the term, it misses a whole body of fear that I knew nothing about until recently.

The Icarus phenomenon of Jason Russell's meltdown prompted me to look more deeply into the involvement of Christian bigots in Uganda. The campaign of Invisible Children to pressure the Obama administration into retaining military advisers in that country reminded me of recent news of American fundamentalist ties to attempts to legitimatize de facto violence against homosexuals in that beleaguered land. I was reminded of how homosexuals in Africa fear being subjected to the vicious treatment of "necklacing" with a burning tire.

My quest for information took me to the work of Jeff Sharlet who became famous for his work exposing the fundamentalist mafia in Washington. Sharlet interviewed Ugandan homophobes to determine the depth of their ties to the Washington mob and to get a handle on the nature of their bigotry. What he found in the former case is that the Washington group has very strong ties to Ugandan homophobes. In the latter case, he found an intellectual basis for bigotry in a thin tome entitled The Pink Swastika by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. It is an eye-opening view into the minds of people who fear homosexuality more than homosexuals fear fundamentalism. Until I read the book, I did not think that was possible.

The authors use evidence of sadistic homosexuals at the highest levels of the German national socialist movement to imply that national socialism is a product of homosexuality. They go so far as to imply that the liberal attitude toward homosexuality within the Weimar Republic gave rise to national socialism. They add two and two together to come up with the number three: freedom for homosexuals leads to death camps for Jews.

The most remarkable aspect of their work is that they provide sufficient evidence for a counter argument, but fail to pay any attention to that evidence. They show that the sadists who perpetrated atrocities were merely a fraction of the homosexual population and what these sadists shared with the authors: a contempt for other homosexuals. They also showed that some homosexuals react violently when they are abused, yet they would have their audience abuse homosexuals. Lively and Abrams make Jonah Goldberg appear downright liberal.

Do you fear homosexuals or homosexuality itself? Why or why not?

Video under the cut. )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
Future year, 2025.

After years and millions of dollars of research, researchers in Bern, Switzerland have developed a medicine that can actually cause a homosexual person to become heterosexual.

Yes, through the manipulation of hormones and the genetic code, these scientists have actually found a way to force the human brain to be sexually attracted to ONLY persons of the opposite sex. Any sexual arousal that at one time was only caused by people of the same sex, is completely undone, as long as the medication is being taken.*

My question to you is: should this medication be legal in your country, and should parents have the legal right to force their children to take this medication?

* just for the hell of it, let's make it a maintenance drug that requires permanent use.
[identity profile] verytwistedmind.livejournal.com

“Ladies and Gentlemen, electric cars are gay,” Vaughn’s character Ronnie Valentine says. “I mean, not ‘homosexual’ gay, but ‘my parents are chaperoning the dance gay.”

-         The Dilemma

 

This preview has been getting a lot of negative press because of the use of the word ‘gay’ as a pejorative.

This is a pet peeve of mine among young people. I’ve noticed that 10-19 year olds seem to default to ‘gay’ way too much. So for me, it’s not a question of sensitivity to treatment of homosexuals as it is to the lame minds of our youth.

Ron Howard has said he will not remove this comment from the movie. I kind of think it fits the sort of comment and back peddle you typically hear from a Vince Vaughn character.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/10/ron-howard-on-the-dilemmas-gay-joke-it-stays-in-the-movie.html

So my questions:

1)       What do you do when you hear someone say “that’s gay” as a pejorative?

a.       What is a more apropos term/slang? I don’t want ‘lame’ coming back because of my time spent in the 80s…. I feel ‘lame’ is the gateway word to ‘gnarly’. Gnarly makes me want to gag myself with a spoon…like totally.

2)       Are you planning on seeing this movie? Does the ‘gay’ comment affect your decision?

3)      Is it okay to call Sponge Bob and Flapjack gay okay? I mean…come on they are gay..right?        


[identity profile] mijopo.livejournal.com
I've been doing some research on the heteroxual adoption debate and while I like to consider myself an open-minded person, I am forced to the conclusion that for the sake of the children and with an eye to society's best interests we cannot allow heterosexual couples to adopt.   In bullet form, here are my main reasons:

1) All the research we do and look at, we see children in a fatherless home or at least a same sex home seem to do better .

2) Straight people cannot provide stable homes. Heterosexual partnerships are notoriously unstable and many heterosexual relationships are breeding grounds for domestic violence. This is not the kind of environment that children should be raised in.

3) Straight people pose a risk of child abuse.

4) Being raised by straight people will cause kids to be straight.  (Well, at least a lot of straight people have come out of straight homes, hard to deny that.)

5) Kids of Straight Parents will Get Picked on.


[identity profile] lady-oneiros.livejournal.com
In their book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein bring up an interesting concept: privatizing marriage. The concept is as stands:

"To respect the liberty of religious groups while protecting individual freedom in general, we propose that marriage, as such, should be completely privatized. Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of of government. The state would do its business, while religious organizations would do theirs. We would eliminate the ambiguity created by the fact that the word marriage now refers both to an official (legal) status and to a religious one."

Under the privatization of marriage, the government would essentially recognize no marriage and instead recognize only civil unions--even between heterosexual couples. If two people wanted to be married, they could go to their respective religious organization and have their union be sanctioned by the appropriate authorities.

I'm increasingly intrigued by this idea, as it would remove the government entirely from the gay marriage debate, while at the same time the government could benefit (tax-wise) from the number of increased pairs and families. It would leave the government as 'hands-off' in terms of personal freedoms and encourage the practice of separation of church and state.
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com


This photo of Rep. Aaron Schock (R-IL) at a White House picnic has been flying around the Internet for the last 24 hours. Rep. Schock would like to remind you that he is totally straight, even though there have been whispers about his sexual orientation since the very start of his politcal career.

The photo was featured on Mike Roger's blog, which has outed several conservative Republicans because of their anti-gay voting track records (e.g. votes on gay marriage, AIDs funding, adoption of children by gay and lesbian parents, etc). Recent targets for Rogers have included Representatives Ed Schrock and David Dreier, U.S. Senator Larry Craig and South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer. He also reported on Jeff Gannon's lack of reporting credentials while having White House press credentials. In September 2008, Mike outed Mark Buse, John McCain's Chief of Staff, as being gay.

Roger's efforts are featured in a recent documentary OUTraged, which deals with the morality of this issue, tracing the sad history of gay bashing by politicians in the United States, prompting one activist to say-- "Look, they've been chasing us for years; now we're going to chase back." The documentary producers look at rumors of several politicians including in a rather timely way: Charlie Crist, Florida's Republican governor, now a candidate for the United States Senate. Crist's terrible track record in Florida for gay rights (in particularly with adoptions) is highlighted in detail along with other leading Republicans around the United States. You can get a better sense of the documentary if you view the official trailer:



Personally I am for this sort of outing. In a certain sense, you give up a personal life by either becoming a celebrity or politician or even a church figure. If Republican "family values" senators are caught doing things that are so contrary to their political statements and platforms, then what's the difference in holding closeted homosexual conservatives' feet to the fire?

And so, what's Rep. Aaron Schock's record on gay rights? He voted against the repeal of DADT, and did not participate in the House vote on the Matthew Shepard Act. His statements as candidate show he's apparently against abortions in all instances, including when the life of the mother is at risk. He's also voted for prayer in schools. (Those aren't anti-gay issues sure, but they do show that Rep. Schock is a pretty run of the mill "family values" Republican).
[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com
I live in Brooklyn, which has one of the more conservative Roman Catholic bishops in the United States. His editorials in the weekly diocesan newspaper about such subjects evolution are the things that make intelligent Catholics cringe. The New York Times has published a large article dealing with the screening of potential priestly candidates in the Roman Catholic church in the wake of the child abuse cases. Because conservative elements in the hierarchy blame the scandal on homosexuality, vocations directors are now asking some tough questions to candidates. Apparently even celibate gay men will be likely barred (although it's claimed individual bishops have leeway to make that decision).

While the Brooklyn archdiocese would not allow seminarians to be interviewed for the New York Times article, the director of vocations the Rev. Kevin J. Sweeney said:


...the new rules were not the order of battle for a witch hunt. “We do not say that homosexuals are bad people,” he said. “And sure, homosexuals have been good priests. But it has to do with our view of marriage,” he said. “A priest can only give his life to the church in the sense that a man gives his life to a female spouse. A homosexual man cannot have the same relationship. It’s not about condemning anybody. It’s about our world view.”


WHhhhhat? I *REALLY* think someone it taking the Biblical metaphor a wee bit too literally. Just absolutely insanity.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031