I like lesbian porn. Is that a gay rights issue? Am I a lesbian?
Did the priest come out as gay?
In what way does this specific video represent the equal rights of gay people being infringed upon?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

... I believe that the struggle for equality includes equal rights for gay/lesbian/transgendered/bisexual people.


I'm sure you must already know that I share that sentiment. The equality channel has over 300 sifts relating to the topic. Some of which I submitted or promoted myself.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

... As @EvilDeathBee pointed out this is only a national story because of the gayness of the porn involved.


Sorry, I just don't agree. IMO it's a story because it was a priest with gay porn. Not just because the porn itself had gay content. Granted, the fact that the porn was gay in nature is a part of it, but not everything *gay is also *equality.

If the issue is that the priest was investigated, well, it was the Archdiocese of the church that called the police and handed over the USB drive. Considering all the sexual abuse scandals the church has had over the years, what would be the public outcry if they didn't have it investigated? "Priest shows gay porn to children, Church does nothing."

Back on topic .. Displaying gay porn, accidentally or not, to a group of unsuspecting parents and a child is not an equal rights issue.

The priest has not identified himself as being gay.
I don't see anything in this video relating to equal rights for gay people.

Equality Channel Description:

A channel for videos relating to racism, bigotry, discrimination, segregation / integration, sexism, ageism, tyranny, civil rights and all struggles for equality.
Political and economic oppression videos also have a home here.

If you think about how blacks have been historically treated in this country, up to and including modern day. Yeah it's understandable that they tend to commit more crime than whites. We treat them like shit, we treat them like second class citizens. If the situations were reversed and it were whites that were slaves only up until the last 100+ years, you might understand why.

Racism *IS* slowly dying. More and more people inter-marry. More and more people grow up living and playing with friends of a different race. Every generation will be more tolerant than the last. But racism is not dead yet. It never will be completely dead. there is always going to be someone who pre judges.

Sad truth is though, that if you are an old person, odds are you were raised in a time where it was perfectly acceptable to treat "the colored folk" like scum and you drank out of separate water fountains. That mentality doesn't go away just because a law says that they have equal rights.

Pretty fucked up when you think about it:

Republicans: "Unborn Fetuses, you get equal rights, Corporations, you get equal rights, but actual people, homosexuals, fuck you!!

Hey religion, your rights end where mine begin!

The driver was a douche for continuing to cut off the cyclist after it was clear they could see each other, and words were exchanged. He should have waited for the owner of that lane (the cyclist) to move ahead so that he could take the next spot in the lane. The cyclist was a douche for continuing to ride down the painted lines, and weaving between cars. Cyclists should act as though they have equal rights and responsibilities in lanes as cars. If there are cars in front of you, yea, it sucks, but you wait, you don't bike down the line. I won't even comment on his reaction to the car. And yes, I bike commute in an urban area 10 miles a day.

Bullshit. Discriminating against a willfully ignorant individual is not even close to discriminating against an entire population. Not. Even. Close.

>>> According to the left, it is, but that's another argument. THIS argument is: if you own a business, you should have the right to decide who you will and will not serve. If we still had freedom, a business owner could decide whether s/he allows smoking on the premises, not the State.

>>> Senator No-Gay wasn't doing anything disruptive in that establishment. I'm defending the right of the owner to kick him out, but I'm also defending the right of a biz owner to kick Dan Savage out because he pokes fun at certain types of Christians, or kick Je$$e Jack$on out for referring to a majority Jewish area of New York as "Hymietown".

People are generally punished, directly or indirectly, for saying and doing stupid things, especially when it causes damage to other people.

But as any good liberal knows, some people are to be punished more than others for exercising their rights.


>> ^jonny:

Bullshit. Discriminating against a willfully ignorant individual is not even close to discriminating against an entire population. Not. Even. Close.
Perhaps if there were an entire sub-population of humanity that was born willfully ignorant and could do nothing about it, was enslaved, killed with impunity once freed, and eventually given some lip service to equal rights, the Organization for the Advancement of Ignorance would have some moral high ground upon which to stand.
But of course, it is the choice to be ignorant that is the key distinction. Spouting stupid shit from a position of power is not the same as being born with DNA that makes your skin dark, your eyes slanted, or your dick hard for other dicks. People are generally punished, directly or indirectly, for saying and doing stupid things, especially when it causes damage to other people.
>> ^quantumushroom:
If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.

Bullshit. Discriminating against a willfully ignorant individual is not even close to discriminating against an entire population. Not. Even. Close.

Perhaps if there were an entire sub-population of humanity that was born willfully ignorant and could do nothing about it, was enslaved, killed with impunity once freed, and eventually given some lip service to equal rights, the Organization for the Advancement of Ignorance would have some moral high ground upon which to stand.

But of course, it is the choice to be ignorant that is the key distinction. Spouting stupid shit from a position of power is not the same as being born with DNA that makes your skin dark, your eyes slanted, or your dick hard for other dicks. People are generally punished, directly or indirectly, for saying and doing stupid things, especially when it causes damage to other people.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If the fascist, politically correct laws that force everyone to associate with everyone else applied to leftists, Senator No-Gay could successfully sue the restaurant for discrimination.

Well, it is partly biological, not solely biological, of course. We agree.

I think we are on the same page. If you go to my profile page and read the conversation between ChaosEngine and me, you can see that I also have concerns about the children and see that I believe strongly in keeping religion out of the laws.

I don't think the indoctrination of children IS a separate issue -- I think it is part and parcel of the passionate energy that some atheists bring to the conversation and I believe strongly it needs to be dealt with -- short of removing the kids from the home or going ahead and sterilizing fundies. You are 100% correct, I think -- education, education, education.

The thing about a perfect world also applies to our conversation.

Fundamentalist religious folks think they have the answer. Fundamentalist atheists think they have the answer. I'm just saying -- carve out your territories and stop trying to invade people's minds. Both of these groups need to stop that. It is a losing game. Create a game where you can win -- [edit] religious fundies stay out of the laws and [edit] rational atheists need to put up the billboards. And the internet! Ah, the lovely internet. Saving grace for many an isolated person.

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
I think you have dug to the heart of our disagreement.

First, you repeatedly state that religion is biological. I think that is partly accurate, but it's not that simple. I think religion itself is memetic, but the need to believe in something is biological. Religion is a symptom of our evolutionary need to believe/explain what we don't understand.

As for not being able to force evolution, we've been doing that - consciously or unconsciously - for thousands of years. While sterilizing the religious and only allowing atheists to breed might be one solution, I think the proper course is education combined with laws separating religion from the government.

While education doesn't work 100% of the time (as your example points out), it is pretty clear that those with more education have less religion. Nations with better education systems have less religious adherence and individuals with higher educations tend to have less religion. And the key words in those sentences are "less religion"; it doesn't mean less belief, it just re-aims that belief from religion to rational thought/science/etc.

Education is to religion as the scalpel is to the appendix - it removes the evolved, no longer useful, but still dangerous, problem.

With regards to it not being right to tell someone not to take comfort in that which comforts them, I partly agree. If it isn't harming anyone else, then I don't care what someone believes and I'm not going to get in their face about it (if they try to convert me though, they have opened the door and are fair game). But the line is drawn when someone's beliefs harm or pose a threat to the well-being of others. In that case, anyone who opposes equal rights (whether for homosexuals, women, non-religious) are fair game.

The issue I struggle with personally is the indoctrination of children. Having experienced that personally, knowing how that limited me (and harmed me, in some ways) I have difficulty allowing the indoctrination of children to go uncontested. But that's a different problem for another discussion ;


>> ^bareboards2:

We'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.
Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.
I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?
Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.
However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)

>> ^Skeeve:
I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

I think you have dug to the heart of our disagreement.

First, you repeatedly state that religion is biological. I think that is partly accurate, but it's not that simple. I think religion itself is memetic, but the need to believe in something is biological. Religion is a symptom of our evolutionary need to believe/explain what we don't understand.

As for not being able to force evolution, we've been doing that - consciously or unconsciously - for thousands of years. While sterilizing the religious and only allowing atheists to breed might be one solution, I think the proper course is education combined with laws separating religion from the government.

While education doesn't work 100% of the time (as your example points out), it is pretty clear that those with more education have less religion. Nations with better education systems have less religious adherence and individuals with higher educations tend to have less religion. And the key words in those sentences are "less religion"; it doesn't mean less belief, it just re-aims that belief from religion to rational thought/science/etc.

Education is to religion as the scalpel is to the appendix - it removes the evolved, no longer useful, but still dangerous, problem.

With regards to it not being right to tell someone not to take comfort in that which comforts them, I partly agree. If it isn't harming anyone else, then I don't care what someone believes and I'm not going to get in their face about it (if they try to convert me though, they have opened the door and are fair game). But the line is drawn when someone's beliefs harm or pose a threat to the well-being of others. In that case, anyone who opposes equal rights (whether for homosexuals, women, non-religious) are fair game.

The issue I struggle with personally is the indoctrination of children. Having experienced that personally, knowing how that limited me (and harmed me, in some ways) I have difficulty allowing the indoctrination of children to go uncontested. But that's a different problem for another discussion


>> ^bareboards2:

We'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't think you can force evolution. It isn't a choice. Not unless you start breeding programs.
Want the biological need for the divine to go away? Sterilize all religious folks. I don't think you can talk folks out of it.
I speak from experience. My brother is a retired Air Force pilot with a Master's degree in aerospace engineering. Grew up in a secular household. His need for structure and the divine led him to the Mormon Church. Talk about goofy beliefs!! Good lord! And he voluntarily turned off his reasoning brain to accept all their nonsense as true. You say religion has "served its purpose." So why did he go there, when he wasn't indoctrinated into it growing up?
Not for me to tell him not to take comfort where he takes comfort.
However, it is for me to tell him to back off on gay marriage and not impose his church's beliefs on others. (And to tell him that when the church's membership starts falling, I guarantee his Prophet will suddenly hear from God that it is okay to be gay now.)

>> ^Skeeve:
I think most atheists would agree with you, that religion has served an evolutionary purpose. I don't have "The God Delusion" with me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure Dawkins acknowledges that as well.
But whether or not it serves an evolutionary purpose or not is irrelevant. The appendix served an evolutionary purpose - then we evolved to do without it. The same goes for the wisdom teeth; most people have them removed because they can cause huge problems, but in a world without dental care they are incredibly important.
Most of us atheists believe it is time, at least in the west, to "evolve" beyond the need for an invisible sky-daddy. We have the opportunity to do with religion what evolution did for the appendix.
Belief in a god is irrational. That's not to say it didn't serve a purpose, as evolution is not bound by the rational, only by phenotypic fitness. But, religion has served its purpose and, like the appendix or the wisdom teeth, it's time it was removed from our lives.
>>

Human Equality and Equal Rights Movement... just like rothbard hates.

It seems to me that the people have already made up their mind on equal rights for black people, way back in 1964, when they demanded our government give black people equal rights. Why on earth would we want to go backwards? Your reasoning makes no sense. Time for a Flavor Aide detox.

The more I look at Ron Paul, the more obvious it becomes to me that he is a terrible candidate. He has so many indefensible positions on civil rights and economics. He's just another states rights neo confederate who has captured the hearts and minds with some effective hype. Look closer. >> ^vaire2ube:

Yea actually, if we were not in charge of the UN or could dismiss it at will, then one might argue that the UN troops could do what they do, in other countries, currently, which is to be there at all.
It's fun to run things when you're in charge.
Also, letting people decide for themselves means you have a process and a chain of trust at the conclusion.
I put forth, per Dr. King, that "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice" ... and to that end, we can let people be bigots and racist if they want... eventually, people will see that all humans are more similar than different and small-minded views will be condemned with the force of all history. I certainly don't mean to imply that if Ron Paul is ignorant then that is acceptable -- i'm saying, letting people come out against things means eventually they have to defend their reasoning, and that is where progress can be made.. IF enough people have access to information.
Or something. Maybe we'll all just forget. Whatever it takes, it will take Time not a new president.
I was going to vote for Obama before I forced myself to look more at Ron Paul, and now I'll write in Ron Paul. Obama will still win per recent election history and his victory margins last time. QFT.

Also this, from here (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/)

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

DFT,

I think Sam is prepared to make the distinction between moderate and radical Islam - and I believe he does. Still, it is true that he writes that religious moderation creates the foundation for religious extremism.

The problem is Hedges is greatly misrepresenting Sam's sentiment. He does not present the scenario in the detail or terms that Sam does in regard to the nuclear first strike or the use of torture. To generalize as he has done paints Sam's comments as advocating for a nuclear first strike against 'muslims'. That simply isn't true.


I think Sam would say if any group (religous, political, ideological) came to power somewhere in the world and had the means and will to deploy WMD we may be forced into a 'First Strike'.

I agree with you that the Middle East despises the US for its constant violence and meddling in their affairs. However, it seems that a perverted form of Islam is still used to motivate many of the 'foot soldiers.' It really isn't an either/or. You have blow back that expresses itself through the regional religion.

Chris Hedges, like David Eagleman, wants to represent the 'new atheists' as something that they are not - closed minded zealots with a blood-thirst. Having read of Sam and Hitchens' work do you really believe that represents them?


The smearing that Hedges is doing is similar to how atheist were dealt with near the turn of the 20th century when they were grouped with the unpopular fascist, socialist/communist, and darwinist. "Stalin was a socialist atheist, look what he did!"

Are Sam and Hitchens intolerant of people or of bad ideas? There is a big difference, and I reckon it is the latter.



Furthermore - Hedges here states that there is nothing in "human nature or human history to support that we are collectively morally moving forward as a species." (2:01 in the video) Really? Has Hedges bothered to read Sam's book Moral Landscape?

Steve Pinker on the Myth of Violence

Does Hedges posit then that we cannot progress morally? Slavery has been abolished, women were finally given the right to vote and equal rights, violence is on the decline globally... yet we are not collectively improving morally? Sorry Chris but the evidence is not in your favor.



I am pleased to see atheist coming back out. Thomas Paine, Walt Whitman, Thomas Huxley, Richard Ingersoll...Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. Marching foward.

In closing - All opinions matter, but informed opinions matter more. That is why knowledge is good and ignorance is evil.

-Kevin

Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism or judgement. No one is going to arrest you for what you say here, but when you engage in controversial speech, you should expect assessment.

I don't say these things to you for political gain. To be blunt, your commentary easily harms your cause more than it helps it. Your unique blend of childish language and unfocussed rage is not a threat. You are ignored, mocked and humbled in argument on a daily basis. Even when you do occasionally engage in lengthier analysis, it usually does not command much interest, support or respect. You do a fair job at keeping yourself marginalized without any help from me, so let's not pretend this is about keeping your politics down.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with disease and mental health. The gay people I know seem higher than average when it comes to mental health, and HIV effects both gay and straight, both women and men. I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think gay people should not be treated with respect or given equal rights because they are at higher risk of getting AIDS? Do you want to quarantine gay people? Sterilized? Do you want it mandated that they to go through life without romantic love because you don't approve? Or do you just want to be able to say you don't like homosexuality free from judgement? None of these is going to happen for you.

I disagree with your contention that conservatism is a one way street. I've seen many conservatives convert to the more liberal conservative libertarianism movement, shedding the prejudice, aggression, nationalism and repression that characterizes the social conservatism of the mainstream right. I see very few conservative libertarians take the next step to liberalism, so you might be right about going all the way, but there is certainly evidence to suggest that your brand of social conservatism dies a little more with each new generation.