The Gay Fray

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.


I am . . . .

  1. Homosexual

    25 vote(s)
  2. Heterosexual

    201 vote(s)
  3. Bisexual

    31 vote(s)
  4. Other (I would have complained if there wasn't an "other" option)

    16 vote(s)
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Responsibility and Power

    Responsibility and Power
    Tennessee high school principal resigns in wake of bigoted remarks to student body

    Today it emerged that the American Civil Liberties Union was getting involved in a homophobia dust-up in Haywood County, Tennessee public schools:

    The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Tennessee sent a letter to the superintendent of the Haywood County school district superintendent after receiving reports that a high school principal said gay students are "not on God’s path" and threatened to expel them if they publicly showed affection for members of the same sex. The letter was sent on behalf of several students and families at the school.

    The ACLU also received reports that Haywood High School Principal Dorothy Bond not only made discriminatory remarks about LGBT people, but also told students that "life is over" for girls who became pregnant.

    "Students should never be made to feel like they are unwelcome at their own school, especially by school leadership," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee. "We expect school officials to clearly state that they do not condone this type of harassment and targeted discrimination, and to take action to ensure that it does not happen again."

    Multiple students contacted the ACLU to express concerns about an assembly that took place on Feb. 9. At the assembly, Principal Bond reportedly said that gay people are "ruining their lives" and threatened to administer severe punishment—including 60-day suspensions, assignments to an alternative school or expulsion—to any students who were observed publicly displaying affection for members of the same sex. The school already has a policy on public displays of affection that is neutral regarding sexual orientation.

    The incident appears to be part of a broader pattern of official anti-gay remarks and policies by the principal, and of incorporating prayers and proselytizing into school events. On one occasion, school officials scolded students who did not bow their heads in prayer and threatened them with discipline. On another occasion, the principal told a lesbian student that she would go to "hell" because of her sexual orientation.

    The ACLU's press release hit the grapevine this morning.

    This afternoon, according to The Jackson Sun, Principal Dorothy Bond resigned.

    We might welcome Ms. Bond to the twenty-first century, but I honestly don't think she would appreciate it.


    American Civil Liberties Union. "ACLU Responds To Reports Of Proselytizing And Anti-LGBT Remarks By Principal At Tennessee High School". March 1, 2012. March 1, 2012.

    "Haywood High School principal resigns". The Jackson Sun. March 11, 2012. March 1, 2012.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Psyche Registered Senior Member

    Gay marriage advocates have it all backwards. They are like African Americans complaining about how they aren't permitted in the KKK. Nobody should want to have anything to do with an institution in which the "tradition" has been bigotry towards their group. By wanting to reform the institution they are conceding the moral high ground to their oppressors. I say screw that and come up with something that is better, something that is all inclusive, and let gays and straights gravitate towards that to show solidarity against traditional bigotry.

    Then again even this approach misses the point. It doesn't make any sense that gays have to expend so much of the energy that could otherwise be directed towards living happy lives to begging strangers for permission to interact with each other as if they were free individuals who can do that sort of thing.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Can't gay people like tradition? Why can't they just want to share in the same cultural traditions and legal benefits as everyone else? Maybe they don't care what marriage used to represent. I mean, do straight people care that marriage used to be--and still is in some places--a transaction, where the bride is counted among the chattel?

    I know I don't.

    I think sometimes we forget that it's really about two people in love wanting to share their lives together, and everything that comes along with it.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Psyche Registered Senior Member

    This is true. But it is absurd that people accept the premise that it is the job of an organization that treats them as sub-human to decide whether they can or cannot organize their lives as they wish. If the right to participate in cultural traditions and enjoy legal benefits is not equally distributed among individuals, than it is not rights we speak of but arbitrary privileges granted by arbitrary authorities. If I prevented my neighbors from eating at the restaurants they want to because they are cat people and I'm a dog person, a rational response on their part wouldn't be to plead with me to grant them rights, it would be to point out to everyone that I'm a deranged idiot for thinking that I am endowed with the mystical ability to grant or refuse rights to begin with. The only thing stopping gay people from getting married right now is that the people who hold a coercive monopoly on running other people's lives like religious bigots more than them. Sure, homosexuals could invest their lives and souls in reforming the institution, but of course most people who have tried that are dead already.
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I believe in choice but choices are better served if they are connected to good information. Some aspects of human and social science are not helping with truth, but seem to be a mercenaries to PC science.

    To explain what I mean. Let me begin an analogous example. The primary purpose of food is nutrition and fuel for the body. This is true regardless of species. Beside this primary, there are many secondaries reasons to eat. Some will eat for pleasure, some eat for comfort, some go out to eat because of dating, some eat to be at the cutting edge of food, others use food as a way to gather the family together. All these secondaries are subjective.

    One way to differentiate primary from secondary, and objective from subjective, would be to stop each to see the impact. Only the primary will have the same impact for all and would cause death. The secondaries will have an emotional impact, different for each, if we stopped them, since these are not objective but subjective. If food had no pleasure but you still eat. This might be boring for some, but it would not impact health.

    Sexuality is analogous. The original evolution into male and female was to separate the genes to increase genetic diversity in offspring. Sex, as an objective primary is for procreation via genetic diversity. There are many subjective secondaries. Sex can be so guys can brag, it can be so you have an excuse to wear condoms, it can be for pleasure or control, whatever.

    None of the secondaries would have an objective impact on the species, if they were stopped. But if we stopped the primary, the human species would become extinct. Homosexuality is not based on the primary, but on a secondary.

    Again we have choice, but arguments that treat this as a primary are misleading. Gays were repressed for years and their life went on, gays did not die, since only a primaries would end this way.

    The question becomes, can a secondary feel subjectively like a primary? The answer is yes. The easiest is connected to addictions. If a young child is addicted to huffing spray paint, this has nothing to do with genetics in the sense of a huffing gene. Yet they might risk health and life to achieve this end.

    The dynamics is more connected to pleasure centers of the brain which act like a template for a whole range of compelling subjectivities. One could substitute spray paint for cocaine, alcohol, or chocolate, and once the template is active it appears to be an instinct.

    We know it is not in most cases, because this would contradict the current theory of evolution, due to the time scales. But since the historical time scale is longer for alcohol or homosexuality we call it genetic, since it won't hurt the theory. But the template is based on a secondary.

    One difference between gay and alcoholism, which makes these appear different is social acceptability and conditioning. Picture if we said being a drunk was natural and anyone who did not get with the PC program, was a out dated. The drunks do not choose to be drunks, but it is who they are. We can show how drunks were persecuted all through history and we are better than that. If you yell at a drunk and tell him to get sober, you are wrong and a bigot. What would be the result of this? It might be drunk parades and drunk pride rallies to compensate for the inner doubt this is as primary as everyone claims.
  9. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    But they aren't reforming it. Gay marriage has a rather long history and many in this country forget that marriage isn't strictly a christian tradition. I know that wicca has nothing to say about gay marriage, leaving it up to the individual practitioner to decide for themselves. Buddhism, likewise, is mute on the subject.

    Though, to be fair, the bible, torah, and koran are all mute on the subject as well.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Not entirely

    Not entirely. The Hebrew Scriptures inform that God hates homosexuality.

    Yet He blesses the conception and birth of homosexuals.

    Meanwhile, in the real world:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Milt Priggee, March 2, 2012
    (via Cagle)
  11. Chipz Banned Banned

    How clever, some one entirely unfamiliar with a resource is making pithy remarks on its substance.
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    But this same argument could be applied to other civil rights issues. "Why do black people bother trying to get the right to sit at the front of the bus, because obviously that isn't a right but an arbitrary privilege."

    Obviously the point pro-gay marriage people are making is that it isn't an arbitrary privilege, but a basic right. Marriage is not an inherently discriminatory institution; the discrimination comes from the governments trying to define it so narrowly.
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The lack of acceptance is based on the use of the word "marriage" to define the union of homosexuals. To those who hold the term marriage sacred, combining gay and marriage, is like the n-word being used to describe blacks. It has this gut repulsion for many people that drives them to anger like an insult.

    If you asked the same people if they are against "gay unions", with all the benefits of marriage, there will be a different reaction since you are not using the n-word analogy to insult their sensibilities. PC is supposed to be sensitive to feelings, but it proves again to be nothing but a cover for a liberal agenda. That why it should be challenged and ignored.

    Say gays decided to use the term "bar mitzfa" to describe their first sexual experience. It is only a term. They could choose any of dozens of terms and nobody would care. But if they tried to hijack this term that would be sleazy. Then PC will come to say it is the fault of the Jews.

    It is not the action or activity of a union that is being challenged, it is the lack of empathy when the virus tries to attach itself to the host word; marriage. There is an immune reaction. If the chosen term was unique to homosexuals, they will get more support because now it is not a virus.

    I am not sure if liberals are that dense or whether they enjoy sticking it to others not in their clan. But they seem to project that they are doing.

    Maybe we can use the words liberal and atheist to describe something that is less than flattering. It is only a word, right?
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    This and That

    Actually, I would suggest that Milt Priggee has a pretty good grasp of where babies—including those who are gay—come from.

    Have you some alternative theory to offer?

    • • •​

    You should probably attend history a bit more closely. Heterosupremacists in the United States have been fighting against gay marriage for longer than it has been legally conceivable. That is, an argument many Christians and other conservatives used in defending the criminalization of oral and anal sex was that if states removed criminal penalties for those consensual acts, gay people would want to get married. For those who have been involved in this issue over the course of decades, the idea of "gay marriage" was often first suggested to them by the homophobes. (To wit, the idea of "gay rights" did not occur to me until I was eighteen and a Christian political organization in Oregon asked voters—including me—to use the force of the state to marginalize homosexuals by excluding books from libraries, rewriting the curriculum in medical schools to conform to religious sentiments, and may well have mandated the firing of any employee identified as gay, and, furthermore, might have prevented the state from prosecuting murders if the victim was homosexual.) By the time we got to Lawrence v. Texas, there was already substantial sympathy toward the idea of gay marriage because heterosupremacists kept asking people to think about it.

    Furthermore, the point you offer involves an idea that the United States Supreme Court has already tried to recognize, and then later rejected. It is called "separate but equal", and historically it should be noted that at its institution in Plessy v. Ferguson, the only dissenting vote on the Supreme Court was Justice Harlan, a man who once owned slaves. Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents in 1950, and then Brown v. Board of Education and Bolling v. Sharpe in 1954, eliminated the separate but equal standard because it was clearly not equal. While some might be shocked at the invocation of separate but equal in the gay rights question, they ought not be; it is a hallmark of institutional bigotry. And, indeed, several states have attempted separate but equal standards; as expected, those remedies have failed the equality test.

    The gut repulsion you suggest is also attached to supremacist ideology. Nobody, under the First Amendment, can force a homophobic Christian church to sanction gay marriages, but many Christians and political conservatives are distressed at the prospect that the churches will be unable to prevent the State from sanctioning these marriages. In the end, what the heterosupremacists construe as a violation of their religious liberty is actually the refusal to impose religious supremacism in law.

    Trying to make this an issue of "political correctness" run amok is just silly. One could easily assert that political correctness abused those who felt blacks and whites should not be allowed to intermarry, but it doesn't really work that way. What sensitivity would you suggest people should offer to bigotry? Oh, heavens, we don't want to make hateful people sad, so we should allow them to continue to hurtfully meddle in other people's lives?

    The idea that women are the equal of men hurts some people's feelings. Just look at the conservatives and clergy who are outraged that a woman with health insurance should be entitled to coverage of birth control; I don't recall Democrats convening hearings with panels of women explaining why consciences should kick Viagra off the insurance roles.

    Equality is a bane to those who have traditionally enjoyed privilege. Arguments about equality often come back to white, Christian males because that is where it started, even before the United States was its own country. And we still see it today: some whites struggle to maintain legal supremacy based on skin color; many men struggle to maintain masculine supremacy; Christians routinely lament the violations of their religious freedom when the law does not allow them to violate other people's First Amendment rights.

    So, no, it's not a matter of political correctness. It's not a matter of being sensitive to hateful and destructive ideologies. It's a matter of law, and even more important, justice.

    Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept the proposition that justice is abhorrent to the heterosupremacists, but whenever I make that argument, I can expect someone to complain that I'm being mean.

    And, frankly, despite the gravity of justice, yeah, that one makes me laugh. Especially when I encounter a variation like yours, which depends on ideas that are, in other people's hands, denounced as unfair.

    I'm as certain as I can be that someone, somewhere, has already tried to make "bar mitzvah" into a sexual term. And it didn't stick.

    To the other, your argument at this point has turned to ego defense—specifically, projection.

    What empathy does one owe supremacist ideology? Bigotry? I mean, you are using a disease metaphor to describe homosexuality, so let's go with that: What empathy do I owe your feelings on this subject?

    Well, for my part I would simply suggest it's a matter of justice. Liberals really stuck it to the slave owners, didn't they? They're really sticking it to the male supremacists, aren't they? We should feel sorry for those bigots, shouldn't we, because the evil, thieving liberals are stealing the rights of those folks to be equal by not letting them be superior under the law?


    How about this for a maybe: Maybe you should pay attention to the world around you. "Liberal" and "atheist" are already widely deployed as pejoratives.

    But in the end, what empathy do we owe those who apparently aren't smart enough to figure out that supremacism is not equality?
  15. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The term supremacism is a tactic to create the image of imbalance. If one side is supreme the other has to weight less, right? Therefore the scales are tipped wrongly and we need to balance the scales with laws and give away programs. That trick does not work with all people.

    The atheists consider the religious irrational, which they assume is lower that rational. This scale is not level, according to atheism. So we need laws to lower the atheists? Did I do the trick right?

    Let me ask this question, why didn't homosexuals choose their own term for the gay union analogous to marriage. Why commandeer knowing this would cause problems? It is not like gays are not creative and couldn't come up with something that is tasteful and clever.

    Instead, commandeer? Equal does not mean commandeer.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Christian Pastor Gives "Special Dispensation" to Parents: Beat Your Gay Kids

    Christian Pastor Gives "Special Dispensation" to Parents: Beat Your Gay Kids

    No, really. Via Good As You:

    So your little son starts to act a little girlish when he is four years old and instead of squashing that like a cockroach and saying, “Man up, son, get that dress off you and get outside and dig a ditch, because that is what boys do,” you get out the camera and you start taking pictures of Johnny acting like a female and then you upload it to YouTube and everybody laughs about it and the next thing you know, this dude, this kid is acting out childhood fantasies that should have been squashed.

    Can I make it any clearer? Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch. Ok? You are not going to act like that. You were made by God to be a male and you are going to be a male. And when your daughter starts acting to Butch you reign her in. And you say, “Oh, no, sweetheart. You can play sports. Play them to the glory of God. But sometimes you are going to act like a girl and walk like a girl and talk like a girl and smell like a girl and that means you are going to be beautiful. You are going to be attractive. You are going to dress yourself up.”

    You say, “Can I take charge like that as a parent?”

    Yeah, you can. You are authorized. I just gave you a special dispensation this morning to do that.

    —Pastor Sean Harris

    That bit of horror was brought to you by Vote for Marriage NC, as they push toward the May 8 vote on their proposed state constitutional amendment to outlaw marriage equality, which is already illegal under statute.

    Onward, Christian soldiers! Beat your children! Strike the swish! Tart up the butch! For the Glory of Christ!


    Hooper, Jeremy. "Amendment 1 pastor gives parents 'special dispensation' to use violence against LGBT kids!!!" Good As You. May 1, 2012. May 3, 2012.
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Andy Gipson, Mississippi GOP Lawmaker, Blasts Gays, Cites Bible Passage Calling For T

    Andy Gipson, Mississippi GOP Lawmaker, Blasts Gays, Cites Bible Passage Calling For Their Death

    How exactly does one lead into this? What does one actually say?

    Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson (R) weighed in on President Barack Obama's gay marriage decision last week, invoking a bible passage that calls for gay men to be "put to death."

    In a May 10 Facebook post, Gipson called homosexuality a "sin," citing Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28:

    Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."​

    On the same thread, he responded to a follower, calling same-sex relationships "unnatural" and suggesting that they will inherently "result in disease":

    What does one wear to a stoning now days? I guess heels are out? What with all those rocks about the place..
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  18. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    As a North Carolinian I feel shame for what happened in my state. The churches got out their vote on a primary ballot and we had no chance. But I think they will regret their vote on that just like they came to regret their segregationist, Jim Crow past. It took 100 years for black civil rights, it will take less time to win the rights of gays to marry. A good example of this is Prop 8, it has lost in every Federal court and it will lose in the SCOTUS as well, making the state laws and amendments moot.

    Marriage is a civil contract, you get your marriage liscense at the Clerk of Court's office here, other state offices elsewhere. The contract gives the participants many different public benefits on taxes and rights. By law the right to marry can only be refused for a rational cause(see Loving v Virginia). The 14th Amendment gives equal protection under the law. So if anyone can marry, everyone can marry(again, without rational cause). Rational cause is something like incest(leads to inbreeding), underage brides or pedophilia(violates the civil rights of the underage), beastiality(animals cannot give informed consent), marrying more than one(too prone to abuse including underage child brides), marrying your toaster(one of you isn't human), and many, many others. There are valid reasons for denying the right to marry. But how others feel about someone's marriage is not a valid or rational reason to limit someone else's right, even if those feelings are religiously based or hurt your feelings. If you don't like gays getting married, don't marry one. Otherwise mind your own affairs.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    I was discussing this in another forum and my stance hasn't changed, he should be charged with incitement, specifically inciting child abuse. Forgetting the Women's rights issues and the Same sex issues this parasite stated he encourages parents to break the law and beat there children. Well if you can charge clerics with inciting terrorist acts you can charge people with inciting child abuse
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    In Jesus' name

    Well, the good reverend did later retract, claiming he was just making a joke. And, to be certain, one can reasonably construe that there are plenty of heterosupremacists in the audience actually laughing at the idea of beating children, and reducing young girls to sex objects.

    Which is fair enough. Indeed, I think that tells us everything we need to know about these alleged Christians and their supremacist cause.

    Beating little boys. Sexing up little girls. Hilarious. In Jesus' name. Amen.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    "I figured a way ...."

    Pastor Worley: "I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers"
    No, really ....

    Christos America ....

    Via Andrew Belonsky:

    In a sermon blasting President Obama for his same-sex marriage support, Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina, offered a novel — and horrific — solution to the so-called gay scourge: build an electric fence and let "lesbians, queers and homosexuals" starve to death.

    "I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers," he says in his sermon, delivered on May 13. "Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there ... Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out… And you know what, in a few years, they'll die." Worley fails to understand that gay people are born, not made, and that there would just be more LGBT folk coming down the line.

    He also [said] that if he's asked who he'll vote for, he'll reply, "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover."

    The not-so-holy man concludes, "God have mercy. It makes me pukin' sick to think about — I don't even whether or not to say this in the pulpit — can you imagine kissing some man?"

    Throughout the sermon, many of his congregants can be heard calling out "Amen."

    One can only thank Pastor Worley for making the point so clearly.

    And his generosity: Yeah, drop some food for 'em, from time to time.

    In Jesus' name! Concentration camps for queers! Praise be to God!

    What? Is there some less-inflammatory summary?

    And, yes, there is video available at the link. Really, go watch it. Not at work. Not within earshot of the kids, or, as such, the parents. Nor the neighbors. Warn your spouse, or wait until he or she is gone. Put the dog out.

    Have a solitary moment with Pastor Worley.


    Belonsky, Andrew. "NC Pastor Wants to Build Electric Fence to Contain, Starve, and Ultimately Kill Gays". Towleroad. May 21, 2012. May 25, 2012.
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Equal Protection Is In Play

    Equal Protection Is In Play
    DoMA stumbles in California

    Yesterday, the question of equal protection under the law entered the fray:

    A federal judge ruled Thursday that the state's public-employee pension system must make long-term care insurance equally available to same-sex spouses and partners.

    U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken said a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is unconstitutional to the extent that it limits same-sex spouses of state workers in obtaining the insurance.

    The provision of the 1996 DOMA law defines marriage as "a legal union of a one man and one woman as husband and wife."

    It has been used to bar gay and lesbian spouses from obtaining a variety of federal benefits.

    Wilken issued her ruling in a lawsuit filed against the California Public Employees' Retirement System, known as CalPERS, by same-sex couples. The system has refused to let gay spouses enroll in its federally approved insurance program on the ground that they were excluded by DOMA.

    Wilken said the DOMA ban violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment. She wrote that there was no proof the DOMA provision was "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."

    Thursday's decision makes Wilken the second trial judge in the U.S. District Court for Northern California to strike down that section of the 1996 law.

    (Bay City News Service)

    The California outcome is perhaps unique insofar as these are California's own same-sex couples. Still, though, equal protection is in play. Barring a Supreme Court decision striking the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV, due process of the Fifth and equal protection in the Fourteenth are now the law of the marriage equality landscape.

    California now must recognize its same-sex spouses. Under Full Faith and Credit, and Equal Protection, if a Massachusetts or Iowa couple moves to California, they, too, will be included.

    Without a successful test of that condition to forestall the granting of benefits to same-sex spouses of public employees married in another state, it will be impossible for other states to exclude legal marriages from other states. Full Faith and Credit demands that a state recognize the acts of another; it's why heterosexual couples don't have to remarry if they move across state borders. A same-sex marriage from a state like Iowa will be binding in North Carolina. And Equal Protection demands that the state not exclude these marriages from marital rights and benefits.

    The federal empowerment by which the states could refuse the Full Faith and Credit clause is gravely wounded.

    Equal Protection is now on the board. The outcome is now inevitable.


    Bay City News Service. "Judge strikes down Defense of Marriage Act provision in California employees' case". May 25, 2012. May 25, 2012.
  23. superstring01 Moderator

    Where's the Christian and Republican outrage? Remember, these are people "who love" everybody.

    Remember, Republicans have been saying that "they don't hate gay people, they are happy to live their lives like anybody else, just marriage is for heterosexuals." Then why did the Republican party scuttle the nomination of a fully qualified judge in Virginia? Where's the love?

    No. It's about hatred.


Share This Page