As the person who wrote the description, let me assure you that you have interpreted the "they" incorrectly.

I meant crazy fundamentalists who have a deep need to control the world. Regardless of what religion.

I copied the wiki article and pointed out that this sentence was a deep relief to me: Although many authors have described such influence (particularly of Reconstructionism),full adherents to Reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.

So there is my proof that this is what I meant.

I am also not an atheist. I believe there are things we can't possibly understand with our puny restricted human brains. I respect the personal choices of individuals -- I would never argue someone out of their personal experience of the divine.

What I don't like is when someone uses their personal experience as an excuse to control others, to define "morality" for others. This guy. Mormons working tirelessly on Prop 8. Parents trying to keep any mention of homosexuality out of schools, which perpetuates the bullying and the shaming. edit - And of course when the Bible is used to trump science. That gives me the screaming mimis.

And I believe that when atheists attack someone's belief as irrational, it is no different than a Christian attempting to force their worldview on the atheist. I think atheists take their justifiable anger at Christians attempting to -- and succeeding at -- controlling others through shame, laws, wars and go too far with it -- I don't believe it is necessary to talk someone out of their personal religious experience, IF IF IF that personal religious experience isn't affecting the atheist in any way. I think atheists need to learn to let folks be, and focus on facts -- overturning Prop 8, booting fundamentalist School Board members out.

Them there's my two cents. Sorry you have felt beat up here. The Sift is a great place, with some really really REALLY smart and funny people. Including some, in my opinion, angry atheists. It is part of the Sift's charm, if you can treat it like entertainment.





>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting


The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

>> ^quantumushroom:
From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)
So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting



The whole thread was created under that presumption. "I am flabbergasted. I keep thinking they can't go any more off the deep end." They as in all Christians. As in all Christians are kooks. I don't know if this site is just pro-atheist but there is a definite undertone of intolerance and bigotry here against Christians. What happened to civil discourse? Oh yeah, this is the internet. Nevermind.

From that link:

LGBT Activists in Uganda point to a virulently anti-gay March 2009 conference 2009 put on by three American Evangelical activists for inciting the latest round of violence and intimidation against the local LGBT community. Among the three were Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, Exodus International board member Don Schmierer, and International Healing Foundation’s Caleb Lee Brundidge, who is a protege of ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen. Lively, who blamed gay men for the rise of Nazism and the Rwandan genocide, proudly declared his talk as being a “nuclear bomb” against LGBT advocacy in Africa. (You can read about all of the events of 2009 and early 2010 here.)

So atheists have no problem using these fringe kooks as representatives of true Christendom, but get insulted when it's pointed out 20th century mass murderers were all leaders of communist regimes? Death toll: 100 million and counting

If I could upvote twice I'd give this vid another vote for her comment at the end: while the "it gets better" campaign has, awesomely, raised awareness about issue of teen homophobia, not all bullying is related to sexuality. All teens, not just the LGBT ones, need to know that it gets better.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


Now maybe--being kinda gay myself--my perspective is just a bit skewed, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Most of the gay activism in my area is concerned with things like funding for a new health clinic to help deal with LGBT concerns, or putting laws on the books against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation--in half of all states in the US, you can be fired simply for being gay. Heck, until a couple years ago, school administrators could discriminate against LGBT kids in the OKC metro area without any consequences. Fully half of all homeless teenagers in my state are gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. These are the things gay activism is overwhelmingly concerned with in most areas of the US. I hardly think that working to alleviate these problems is radical.

The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of allowing gay and bisexual folk to serve openly in the military. So that's not too radical, either.

About the only "radical" agenda item that's really pushed is gay marriage--which is given a disproportionate amount of press when compared to other LGBT issues. But the reasons for pushing for marriage instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are quite practical rather than merely ideological. What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.>> ^choggie:

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.


Many more? Really? To the contrary, in my experience. Do you have studies that say otherwise? Or are you perhaps better linked in with the gay community than I--a gay man--am? I must confess my doubts.

The American Humanist Association is coming to the rescue!
http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2010-03-humanists-prepare-to-hold-lgbt-inclusive-prom-in-miss

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ireland, LGBT, gay, 4 million, marriage, campagin, equal rights' to 'ireland, LGBT, gay, 4 million, marriage, campagin, equal rights, sineads hand' - edited by EndAll

>> ^blankfist:
I disagree with your logic. Like I said, the list is certainly petty, but 100 is a large number. I don't even think Bush did 100 bad things in 100 days that wouldn't be considered nitpicking. So, does that mean Bush did really, really well in your eyes?

Obama did a lot in his first 100 days, and I liked almost all of it. Libertarians didn't, and one wrote down 100 things they hated. I don't think the latter fact tells you much about Obama, but it tells me plenty that most of his list was "I didn't like this promise Obama kept", vs. your implied "Obama has broken many promises".

I couldn't tell you a thing about what Bush did in his first 100 days, but I wasn't terribly interested in politics then, either.

I don't think the things Obama will be remembered for have happened yet, which is why I think attempts to characterize him as having been some sort of failure or overbearing dictator is premature, to put it mildly.

Obama said, and I quote, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." link.

Yes, many conservatives like to cherry pick that quote. Here's a quote from whitehouse.gov:

He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

That sounds fairly comparable to what libertarians would say too.

War is the biggest issue.

Out of touch. The economy is the biggest issue. But do go on, I want to hear your solution which will stabilize the region, deter extremism, destroy the organization that organized the attacks of 9/11, and ends the war.

Alternatively, you can give me the talking points that will convince a majority of people that none of the rest of that matters, just ending the war.

And, Obama is looking to extend that effort into Afghanistan. What's your point? That he's "talking" about ending the war in Iraq? He's talking about downsizing that effort, and he certainly won't pull out of Iraq. The Dems will act like the Repubs for the next year saying "if we broke it, we bought it" to promote their disgustingly partisan bullshit.

Oh, instead of a solution, you just had disgustingly partisan bullshit.

I do want more from Obama on Afghanistan; what the objective is, what conditions he's looking for before winding down our presence there, etc. I also want to hear more about his plans for the Al Qaeda-controlled regions of Pakistan, since that's who we were originally after in Afghanistan. I'm concerned about us just leaving our troops in the wrong country to defend against raiders sent from Pakistan, with no clear path to resolving the overall conflict, militarily or otherwise.

If you can convince me that there's no threat of Al Qaeda gaining control of Pakistan or its nuclear weapons (or that those things aren't a danger to our safety), then I'm all for full withdrawal from the whole area. If you can't, tell me how we prevent it, and still withdraw all our troops.

Iraq I think is winding down. We have a signed treaty that requires us to leave by the end of 2011, and I currently have no reason to believe Obama will violate the treaty, or try to negotiate a new one. It's not as fast as I'd like, but it's good enough for me for the time being.

I hate Rick Warren, but I appreciate Obama's perspective here. And Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who has been a strong advocate of LGBT issues, so Obama chose members of both the religious right and the religious left to be at his inauguration.

^Imstellar

You say:
"the reason i did this (gay marriage = polygamy) was to illustrate that democracy is a flawed system and does not protect against oppression, intolerance, and hate--the only system which does this is a rule of law derived by basic human rights!"

Your proposition was:
"Republic government" + "That single line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is enough to ensure gay rights, polygamist rights, womens suffrage, forbid slavery, racism, protect freedom of speech and religion, maintain economic liberty, and guard against any other form of oppression."

Do we live in the same world?

The United States is a federal constitutional republic not a democracy. Bill of rights (1791) and the US Constitution (1787).

Even then slavery ended (legally speaking only) in 1865, racism continued for a long time culminating with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Woman's suffrage only came into nationalized form in 1920.

I find it silly to lay the blame at the feet of democracy which doesn't currently exist in the US, and claim that solutions exist in a republic that issues laws and decrees that you expect to be perfectly respected by every organ of the government and applied fairly across the nation.

The obstacles to same-sex marriage stem from basic social incompatibility out of years of fear mongering that gays would ruin America and its moral standing originating in the fundamentalist christian right. It's basic social taboo, which we might find wrong but wouldn't be thought of so in the Midwest and most of the Christian enclaves in the US.

These fears are then expressed in election that bring social conservatives to power, resulting laws passed by congress, house and signed in by the President, the largest one being the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), authored by Bob Barr (republican at the time) in 1996 going fast tracked through a republican controlled house and congress.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

What I outlined there was not a democracy, it is exactly what you outlined, a republic which at its core has the bill of rights that possess "the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

In the same way as social views are altered so do those who get elected into power become representative of changing of the times, for example Prez Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.

I believe that in the next 5 to 10 years there will be a repel or reform on Prop 8, at the same time I believe it will be confined to more socially progressive areas of the US with more conservative states taking much longer.

Then if polygamy is such a big issue and concern well they can mount a organized movement to have state recognition for that (even though I think its a really minority and fringe issue not on the same scale as gay rights).

But you are mistaken to think that the solution will magically spring forth if we simply have a republic with human rights as guiding tenants because we had that and even then social issues took decades to resolve. The line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an ideal the forefathers gave this country it wasn't a dictum and in many ways I believe at the time it was meant to apply only to white male Americans oppressed by British rule.

But its wording has come to mean so much more as an idea. It is America's pursuit of that idea that makes that nation so great.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gay marriage, proposition 8, lgbt, lgbtq, homosexual, propaganda, california, ca, godwin' to 'gay marriage, proposition 8, lgbt, lgbtq, homosexual, propaganda, california, ca, prop 8' - edited by winkler1

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gay marriage, proposition 8, lgbt, lgbtq, homosexual, propaganda, california, ca' to 'gay marriage, proposition 8, lgbt, lgbtq, homosexual, propaganda, california, ca, godwin' - edited by winkler1