Gay Rights

[Staffan]

(Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)

Being an atheist, I think it's rather remarkable that the people who shout the loudest about God seem to be the ones who missed the point the most. Greedy, war-mongering, prideful, judgmental hypocrites.

Edit: Not referring to any particular person here, but rather those politicians and others who use their Christianity as a club with which to beat others.

 

[Umbran]

Being an atheist, I think it's rather remarkable that the people who shout the loudest about God seem to be the ones who missed the point the most. Greedy, war-mongering, prideful, judgmental hypocrites.

Edit: Not referring to any particular person here, but rather those politicians and others who use their Christianity as a club with which to beat others.

It is those people who need something to help push their agendas and justify their actions that need to shout the loudest.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The American Catholic Church & its flock tends to be a LOT more liberal than anywhere else in the world.

And it wasn't so much Francis' speeches that busted open the split between us and the Protestants- it was the 2012 election. As I have repeatedly pointed out to more conservative Catholics of my acquaintance (like my Mom & her best bud), despite the problems our clergy has with Obama and the Democrats, our Bishops and nuns composed and published a condemnation of the Rommey/Ryan budget as- and I quote- "unchristian." That's a pretty potent broadside.

There are some AWESOME nuns out there.

(Really, Ryan- how DOES one reconcile the philosophy of Ayn Rand with that of Christianity?)

Generally, by ignoring the reality of both.

I can't imagine Rand would've been happy with cherry-picked bits of her philosophy being offered up alongside prayers to Jesus, a man she never had great love for, and the most Biblically-inspired economic system would maybe be a sort of communism by way of helping each other.

But these days talking about Jesus a lot and also talking about the virtues of small government and free market economics a lot go hand-in-hand.

 

[Talmek]

Regarding gay rights, same-sex marriage, etc.

If you want to get married (you're more foolish than I thought - why on earth anyone would really want to get married is beyond me) then more power to you. I've worked in extremely close proximity with homosexuals (being in the military in the "don't ask, don't tell" era) I can tell you that we all bled the same color and although you probably didn't want to run around advertising it to the general public/command structure, my unit's leadership was really more concerned about whether or not you could actually uphold the standards to achieve the mission rather than whether you liked boys, girls, chickens, et al.

Now that I'm a civilian (and a Catholic convert) my views have not really changed. I'm of the mindset that what you do in your life, provided that you are not harming anyone else, is yours to do with what you want. Further, I come from a school of thought that emphasizes that we are to tolerate one another, regardless of whether or not we agree with each other.

However, I do also wish to make the statement that while I respect someone's rights to live their life as they see fit, I do NOT agree with some of the boundary-pushing behaviors that I have witnessed in some "pride" events. If you want to gain credibility and be taken seriously, walking around in public in a neon banana hammock screaming your sexual preference to all those who would listen, while entertaining, is not going to get you the results that you so greatly desire (and in most cases deserve - i.e. fair treatment in a court of law, mutual respect for basic human rights, protection from hate crimes). Rather, extreme and escalatory behaviors will beget the same from the opposition.

Remember - tolerance above all else.

 

[MechaPilot]

However, I do also wish to make the statement that while I respect someone's rights to live their life as they see fit, I do NOT agree with some of the boundary-pushing behaviors that I have witnessed in some "pride" events. If you want to gain credibility and be taken seriously, walking around in public in a neon banana hammock screaming your sexual preference to all those who would listen, while entertaining, is not going to get you the results that you so greatly desire (and in most cases deserve - i.e. fair treatment in a court of law, mutual respect for basic human rights, protection from hate crimes). Rather, extreme and escalatory behaviors will beget the same from the opposition.

Remember - tolerance above all else.

While I agree with almost everything you said in your post, which was quite good by the way, I just want to point out that pride events are not about gaining credibility. Credibility comes from the fact that we are all people and are all deserving of the same rights and protections under the law, even if someone else's religion says what you do is an "abomination" (which is, coincidentally speaking, how the eating of shellfish is described in the bible).

In general, I see pride events as having two different purposes:

1) A pride event can be a release valve for people who have to put up with restraining who they are under normal circumstances, such as when college students go crazy on spring break because of all the work they had to invest in studying.

And

2) You generally cannot tell a person's sexuality just from looking at them. So a pride event is an in-your-face way of saying we're a part of society and we aren't going away.

 

[Talmek]

While I agree with almost everything you said in your post, which was quite good by the way, I just want to point out that pride events are not about gaining credibility. Credibility comes from the fact that we are all people and are all deserving of the same rights and protections under the law, even if someone else's religion says what you do is an "abomination" (which is, coincidentally speaking, how the eating of shellfish is described in the bible).

In general, I see pride events as having two different purposes:

1) A pride event can be a release valve for people who have to put up with restraining who they are under normal circumstances, such as when college students go crazy on spring break because of all the work they had to invest in studying.

And

2) You generally cannot tell a person's sexuality just from looking at them. So a pride event is an in-your-face way of saying we're a part of society and we aren't going away.

Thank you for the compliment. Courtesy has become far too rare in this world so it becomes more noticeable...white hats in a black world and so on...

Also, I was under the mistaken impression that pride events were akin to the civil rights marches of the 1960s rather than a spring break event. If this is accurate than the misunderstanding is mine and I would only suggest spending more time lobbying politicians and organizing political marches than spending time looking for release. In my opinion focusing on the political aspect (as distasteful as that is) is the only way a minority group will gain the clout needed to influence lawmakers, etc.

Granted, everyone deserves an opportunity to blow off some steam (as a war veteran who poses daily as a civilian rather than what I believe I should have been in my life I can relate...in a small way, at least); but again I would have to say find a more...acceptable method than spitting on people or being quite so "in your face". It takes away from the overall cause, in my opinion.

To any "Christian" who would find it necessary to quote the Old Testament to someone...here's a couple of reminders/rebuttals from the New Testament (aka the new teachings that were supposed to override the old):

Matthew 7:1 - "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
Matthew 22:37-22:40 - And He said to him, "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. This is the great and first commandment. The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.
John 8:7 - But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

There are plenty more, but in the couple of instances where I've seen someone who's pretty self-righteous bringing down someone else they don't typically stand around long enough for me to finish YELLING these scriptures at them in a Drill Sergeant's voice to help them remember that we are supposed to HELP OTHERS...or at a minimum...tolerate them.

Just my take I suppose.

 

[MechaPilot]

Thank you for the compliment. Courtesy has become far too rare in this world so it becomes more noticeable...white hats in a black world and so on...

You're welcome. In general, I try to converse online as I would in real life: I don't see the relative anonymity of the internet to be an excuse for bad behavior, and I appreciate it when others try to be civil as well.

Also, I was under the mistaken impression that pride events were akin to the civil rights marches of the 1960s rather than a spring break event. If this is accurate than the misunderstanding is mine and I would only suggest spending more time lobbying politicians and organizing political marches than spending time looking for release. In my opinion focusing on the political aspect (as distasteful as that is) is the only way a minority group will gain the clout needed to influence lawmakers, etc.

I think it depends on the event in question. I'm sure some pride events are marches and protests where the message should outweigh the noise of an overly ostentatious display. However, based on some of the footage I've seen from pride parades, I am equally certain that some of them are just occasions to let loose and be oneself; or, perhaps to be more showy than one would normally be, like a fan wearing a skimpy costume for a comic con when she doesn't normally dress that way.

Granted, everyone deserves an opportunity to blow off some steam (as a war veteran who poses daily as a civilian rather than what I believe I should have been in my life I can relate...in a small way, at least); but again I would have to say find a more...acceptable method than spitting on people or being quite so "in your face". It takes away from the overall cause, in my opinion.

I've never seen the spitting on people thing (assuming you mean that literally), and I consider that poor behavior regardless of the occasion. If you mean figuratively spitting on people, then I can only say that 1) that depends on the person (certain politicians and social advocates are likely to get that kind of treatment at a pride event), and 2) sometimes people go to extremes when they let off steam (which is merely an explanation and not an excuse).

 

[Dire Bare]

However, I do also wish to make the statement that while I respect someone's rights to live their life as they see fit, I do NOT agree with some of the boundary-pushing behaviors that I have witnessed in some "pride" events. If you want to gain credibility and be taken seriously, walking around in public in a neon banana hammock screaming your sexual preference to all those who would listen, while entertaining, is not going to get you the results that you so greatly desire (and in most cases deserve - i.e. fair treatment in a court of law, mutual respect for basic human rights, protection from hate crimes). Rather, extreme and escalatory behaviors will beget the same from the opposition.

Have you read the entire thread yet? It's long, but (mostly) civil and we've already gone round on this one. Your position seems similar to Bullgrit's.

My response to being uncomfortable with displays of flamboyance, is, well, this:

Remember - tolerance above all else.

 

[Dire Bare]

But you're ok with my mocking Southerners and NASCAR? [And doesn't NAMBLA have "love" in it's very name? I can't believe I'm talking about NAMBLA.] I just assumed we probably didn't have any furry sexers around here. If we do, I apologize for picking on them. I'll stick to picking on my own culture.

Bullgrit

Bullgrit, I'm assuming you are a southerner and white . . . forgive me if my assumptions are off. When someone mocks something that is within their own culture, it's often given a pass. When someone mocks something outside of their culture, especially something that represents a discriminated against minority, it's very different. Not that it makes it OK.

We really shouldn't mock southerners, or "rednecks", (whether they are NASCAR fans or not) as it is a negative stereotype that doesn't hold true for many southerners. But since white southerners aren't an oppressed minority, "redneck" jokes won't get you the same reactions as racist jokes about black people or homophobic jokes. For the truly tolerant, none of these types of discrimination are acceptable, but it's hard to be 100% tolerant, because, well, we are human and tribal. Not that we shouldn't try, we most certainly should.

It's also a question of scale, or "ranking". Negative, discriminatory thoughts and actions against non-whites and non-straights is a HUGE problem in our country (USA), although certainly worse in other areas of the world. Discrimination against whites from any part of the country, and discrimination against fans of NASCAR, exist, but really aren't high on the list of "problems that need to be solved yesterday".

 

[Dire Bare]

So, now that same sex marriage is legal will the gay rights activist now work on getting Bigamy legalize? What about polygamy? And those who wish to marry in the family? Or was it not really about marriage equality for all,but just for them?

Why don't gay-rights activists fight for poly-rights? Because they are gay activists, not poly-activists! I'm sure there are gay people who feel that poly marriages should be legal, but have their hands full fighting for their own rights. Gaining the right to marry is big, but the struggle for equal rights is far from over. And, as Dannyalcatraz has pointed out, legalizing poly marriage would be a complex undertaking. In comparison, same-sex marriage legalization is cake (from a Christian bakery, no less)!

I personally believe that polygamous marriage should be 100% legal here in the USA, and I support the poly friends that I do have. But I'm not a poly-rights activist, in part because I'm a straight, monogamous dude, and not having the right to marry more than one spouse isn't high on my personal needs list. But I would certainly support a "poly-rights movement" if one ever crops up.

I took the same approach to same-sex marriage. I have long believed that gay people should have the same rights as straight people 100%. But, as a straight guy, not having the right to marry another guy doesn't set me back much. So, I am not a gay-rights activist. But I do support my gay friends and I am very pleased with the recent Supreme Court ruling.

And, gay people are people too, in every respect. Some gay people are racist, some hate on Muslims right along with the Fox News crowd, and some do not support the idea of polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages.

For poly folks to enjoy equal marriage, there needs to be a poly-rights movement fronted by polyamorous/polygamous folks. Just like the gay-rights movement largely consists of and is led by gay people. Far as I know, the poly community in the USA is very small and not politically organized. But, while I do have poly friends, I'm not in touch with what's going on within the poly community, so I could be wrong.

NOTE: Please be aware that polygamy is not just practiced by a Mormon splinter group in the western USA, and is not characterized by power imbalances and child abuse. Polygamous marriages HAVE been used to create power imbalances, usually in favor of men, but the same can be said about "traditional" marriage. Polygamous marriages have been a part of many cultures throughout the world, both in the present day and in past times all the way back to pre-history. Some structures allow for one man to have multiple wives, others allow for one woman to have multiple husbands, and some allow for multiple wives and multiple husbands. Just the concept of polygamous marriage itself is a complex beast, and to legalize it within the USA might be the right thing to do, but it would be difficult and complex even if 100% of our society would be cool with it, which, we obviously aren't.

Do I hope we get there someday? Yes. Do I judge my monogamous straight and gay friends for not adding poly-rights to their activism? No.

TL;DR: Same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage (which includes bigamy) are not the same issue at all. Related, yes, but not remotely the same.