Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 28, 2004.
You are right.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Of course, often gay people are killed because they are gay in Western cultures.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe bigots moralists stupid people shouldn't have gone out of their way to make homosexuality such a priority. This wasn't a banner issue until a bunch of Christians asked society to make it one.
The human rights of homosexuals would have emerged eventually, but its priority rose quickly because a bunch of Christians needed to find an excuse to be cruel unto others.
When your general argument coincides with the outlook of those who picked this fight, only extraordinary ignorance can justify your question.
But, really, the human rights of homosexuals would not have become a banner issue as it has without a bunch of frothing, stupid bigots loudly bawling in the public square because people they don't like have human rights.
That is to say, were it not for zealous, Christian cruelty, gay rights would be a much different discussion today.
But you're right. Only in Western culture could this particular brand of Christian stupidity bring such results.
(Nor are those Christian zealots able to wash their hands of starvation. Maybe if they spent more time affirming their Christian faith by behaving in a Christian manner, they could do to hunger what they hope to do to homosexuals. It's all a matter of priorities.)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thus Spake Justice: "You know, I can still hear you."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have mentioned this case before. Weep until you vomit; that would probably be the healthiest thing.
This is how John Ward described killing his first wife.
“I wanted her to give me my divorce and custody of my daughter,” he told Geraldo Rivera. “And she told me she’d see me in hell first. And I told her to save me a seat. And then I shot her.”
“ … I shot her three times in the upper left shoulder,” he said. “She told me not to kill her, she would give me the baby and a divorce. I fired three times point blank into the heart. … And I reloaded and I shot her six more times, point blank.”
Ward did eight years in prison for second-degree murder. But there is more. One of his daughters has said that when she was a child, he tried to molest her and other children. A stepdaughter has said that when she was a teenager, “I brought a friend of mine over, a black girl. He was like, ‘Get that damn n––r out of my yard.’”
The point being, that Ward was hardly an exemplary human being.
Yet when a Pensacola judge had to choose between this steaming hot pile of humanity and his estranged second wife in deciding custody of their adolescent daughter, Cassey, the judge sided with him. Given what a piece of work this guy was, you might wonder: What was it about Mary Ward that was so objectionable a court would choose him over her?
Simple. Mary was gay. Cassey, said the judge, should grow up in “a non-lesbian world.”
Leonard Pitts, Jr.↱ dredged up this harrowing memory, and for good reason. The U.S. Supreme Court, this week, slapped Alabama in the face for its impudence, enforcing Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause. And for the case coming out of the Yellowhammer State, the outcome was so obvious the Court did not even bother with oral arguments:
The U.S. Supreme Court, without hearing oral argument, has unanimously reversed an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that denied parental rights to a lesbian adoptive mother who had split with her partner. The decision is a direct repudiation of an Alabama Supreme Court decision that refused to recognize a Georgia adoption.
The two women in the case were together for 16 years, and they had three children conceived by assisted reproductive technology — an older daughter, now 13, and boy and girl twins, now 11. The actual names of the parents have not been revealed. They are identified in court documents by the initials V.L. and E.L.
E.L. was the biological mother and V.L. subsequently adopted the children with her partner's explicit consent. The adoption was in Georgia, where both women appeared at a court hearing, and the final adoption decree recognized both as the children's legal parents.
When the parents, now living in Alabama, split five years ago, however, the biological mother denied her former partner access to the children. The Alabama courts initially ordered a decree of shared custody, based on the Georgia adoption, but the Alabama Supreme Court overturned the lower court orders. The state Supreme Court said the Georgia courts had wrongly agreed to the adoption.
The adoptive mother appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and on Monday the justices unanimously overruled the Alabama Supreme Court in a short, unsigned opinion.
Pitts, for his part, notes:
Sadly, we'll never know what Mary’s take on this might have been. She died of a sudden heart attack the year after she lost her child. It’s hard not to suspect grief played some part in that.
And Cassey, some fifteen years after the fact, explained to documentary filmmakers that she regretted the judge's decision:
The Miami Herald’s Steve Rothaus reported that Cassey ended up bouncing in and out of her father’s house for a few years before finally moving in for good with her older sister Carla, who is a lesbian.
Cassey herself told filmmakers she regrets being taken from her mom.
“I look at my brother and my sisters, and how they’re, you know, doing good and have all their friends and great jobs and homes, and I think if Mom would have got to raise me it would be the same because they had the love and support from Mom. But my dad was country and kind of narrow-minded.”
He calls it "a rough and imperfect vindication", noting, "the nation’s highest tribunal figured out what Cassey’s narrow-minded dad never could – that 'lesbian mother' is just another word for 'mother'".
Some wonder how and why gay rights are a focus of so much attention; maybe they should have paid some more of their own.
We should also note that the whole Article IV question has already arisen and been resolved in Alabama↱, but apparently the State Supreme Court wanted another go at it.
And they'll probably want yet another. I wonder what they'll come up with, and just how badly Alabama bigots want to believe the third time will be the charm.
Alabama needs to learn: No means no.
Pitts Jr., Leonard. "'Lesbian mother' just another word for 'mother'". The News Tribune. 8 March 2016. TheNewsTribune.com. 9 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1YxXiyC
Totenberg, Nina. "Same-Sex Adoption Upheld By U.S. Supreme Court". 7 March 2016. NPR.org. 9 March 2016. http://n.pr/223xqga
Why is this even an issue for you? People who are gay need their rights respected. To love and to marry their soulmates. And...starving people need food. Why is this an either/or scenario for you? From what I can tell there are massive efforts by many nations and charities to feed starving people. Are we to stop protecting people's rights to be gay because there's people still starving? What would that solve? Are gay people using up all the compassion that could normally be spent on others? I sense much homophobia in you grasshopper. As if gay people are somehow at fault for people starving. It's one of your group's oldest ploys. Like how they blame gays for hurricanes and earthquakes and terrorists acts. Tell ya what. Don't worry about us because we're doin just fine. Donate to world hunger charities. Move to a foreign country and help feed the starving. It would be better than sitting around all day bitching about gay people causing people to starve to death.
It's a basic human conundrum. To some degree, vicious cruelty feels good; it produces a pleasurable reward in brain chemistry. Many people condition themselves against this sort of thing, but an increasing number want us to believe they are incapable of such self-control; they are violated as long as they cannot violate others.
Our neighbor needs it this way because the brands of cruelty he has learned and loved over the years are dying; he needs whatever excuse he can come up with to justify himself.
No one is preventing gays from being gay. In the larger scheme of things, the scales of priorities should point in the direction of REAL problems. Weigh the difference between anal and oral sex to that of people with REAL problems--You know, like people starving to death. Only in our culture could something so trivial be hoisted onto an alter. While Teassa moans and groans about gay bashing in Brazil, a closer look would show that children in that country are suffering much worse.
So yeah, it is a bit hard to take it seriously.
While people in the West bicker over who wouldn't bake their wedding cake, other people are truly suffering...
Well, insofar as there are people who kill gays, being prevented from being alive is preventing people from being gay. Preventing people from being gay in a certain country and forcing them out of the country is preventing them from at least being gay in that country.
You seem to have an inanely narrow view of the world.
OK, so you are OK with suffering as long as it's not the worst suffering. So, if you are raped, you won't report it, since the police have more serious crimes to pursue?
Yeah, but there are worse things going on in the world, so Bowser is okay with murder and mass violence as long as the victims are queer.
Remember, Bowser is the guy who refused to acknowledge the humanity and human rights of women. We don't expect much of human decency from him; it is too much, and therefore oppressive and unjust, to ask. Or something like that.
No, really, I don't know. But, you know, murder advocacy is now one the list of his identifiable standards; I hold myself informed.
I still don't see how the existence of one problem mitigates that of another. That there are poor children in Brazil doesn't trivialize a 13 yr old being constantly bullied in school as a fag. They are two equally serious issues and should be addressed. There are 7 billion people on earth. Don't you think we have the resources to address both these problems in addition to many others like heroin addiction, child abuse, racism, homophobia, sexism, ISIS, etc.?
It doesn't; and that's not his point, anyway. His point is any excuse to promote bigotry.
There were other problems in the world when bigots like him picked this fight; the question of why it was so important to compel states to cruelty to people they don't like remains unanswered.
This latest sniveling is predictable; they picked a fight, they're flat out losing, so now they want to pretend it's no big deal and blame others for their own decisions.
I might, since we've actually reached this stage of the discussion, wonder what makes sniveling dishonesty within bigotry at all surprising. Until our neighbor demonstrates otherwise, it would behoove us to simply remember that his point is to take pleasure in denigrating other human beings.
Look, of course homosexuals shouldn't suffer under fist and assault just because they are gay. I think we all agree on that point. How people manage to identify and single out homosexuals on the street, I don't know. As it stands now, homosexuals have all the rights given to heterosexuals--in the U.S. Regardless, people still hold strong opinions on the subject, whether those opinions be personal or religious in nature, and many are starting to take notice.
My opinion is that the majority of homosexuals in Western culture have it far better than much of the World's population. Heck, we all have it pretty good in comparison. Yet when we spend so much time pissing over a bakery that refuses to bake a cake, while so many are actually starving because of lack of food, there's something terribly wrong with our society. I simply can't feel badly for the homosexual who was denied access to the Boy Scouts when I know such crap really doesn't matter in the larger picture.
People are so obsessed with First World Problems that they have no idea what true suffering is. I think I would ask you, what are the most pressing problems of this world? When we talk about homosexuality (sex), does that really deserve the front burner? Really? I mean, 24,000 people die of starvation every day.
Hmm, I will be honest, I do believe there is something wrong with homosexuality. If that makes me a "bigot," then damn me for having an opinion. I also believe there's something wrong with heroine addiction, but the social justice warriors haven't latched onto them yet.
I don't know you. Maybe you are a champion for the poor and hungry elsewhere. It's just that all I see here is an obsession around sexual minorities. Maybe I just don't feel the same empathy for them as do you. I do need measure the pains of this world with a discerning eye, and homosexuality isn't on the top of the list.
Let me ask you this: do you devote your life and way of thinking to the solution of world hunger? Or, is it just something you brought up now to diminish the value of tolerance and equality in our society? I'm suspecting the latter, which means you are using world hunger as yet another excuse to attack gay people for simply living out their true natures.Are you that hard up for reasons to demonize people on the sole basis of their sexual preference? I guess it's a good sign of the times if such transparent spite against people you don't even know has to be resorted to. At least there's no bible verses and rants about gay child molesters.
I do think about it, more so when I drive by the homeless camp near my home. I'm well aware that there are REAL problems in our world. And I do measure them with a skeptical eye. You tell me, does hunger seem more imperative than sexual desire? If a person wants anal intercourse, I'm certain they can find it without much trouble, but what about those who have no food?
No, I do not do enough to solve the problem. My empathy still resides with those people, more so than with paraphilias.
Then you should devote your energies towards donations or actually helping starving people directly than complaining and scapegoating gay people who have nothing to do with that problem. Our freedom to live and to love our soulmates is not related in any way to you doing this. It doesn't obstruct you in any way from accomplishing this goal. Unless ofcourse you are using the mere prospect of helping starving people as an excuse to bash gay people. What possible relevance does what gay people do have to you? You shouldn't even be worrying about what people do in bed in the privacy of their own homes. Do you worry about heterosexuals and their sexual practices? I imagine not. You seek only to justify a persistent and personal grudge you have against gay people. You need to look into yourself and question why you feel that way about such a irrelevant matter as what consenting strangers legally do in their own beds at night.
Mod Hat ― Intervention
(1) Having an opinion does not in and of itself make one a bigot, and you really ought to be smart enough to comprehend that.
(2) Going out of your way to be cruel to people just to feel better about yourself might well make you a bigot, especially if that behavior relies on stupidity, e.g., a stubbornly uneducated opinion. At the very least, such behavior shows you to be a bully, and depicts someone with disruptive anti-social behavioral tendencies.
(3) Comparing people you don't like to substance abuse is a better example of what makes you a bigot. It is also exactly unacceptable.
(4) You've been on a bigoted tear against homosexuals and women for months, now. This community has put up with enough of you.
→ Your behavior is not welcome here. The character you play is not welcome here. If you cannot come up with anything better than willful cruelty in order to feel better about yourself, then either get your shit together or pack your shit and leave.
It would seem that regardless of my efforts to be thoughtful in my replies, I have, again, been warned. I'm hesitant to respond to your reply, Magic. I would love to give you an honest reply, but that won't fly here.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Via Right Wing Watch↱:
Kevin Swanson, the pastor courted by Ted Cruz who has repeatedly called for the execution of gay people, including just minutes before speaking with Cruz at an event last November in Iowa, dedicated a radio program last week to attacking the Girl Scouts for supporting women’s and LGBT rights, saying that the group’s leaders are worthy of death.
Swanson, who has spent years calling for a boycott of Girl Scouts cookies and accusing the organization of promoting communism and turning girls into lesbians, said that Girl Scouts leaders have violated Jesus’ teaching that it would be better for someone to have a millstone hung around their neck and thrown into the sea rather than cause a child to sin.
This instruction, Swanson said, should be applied literally. After criticizing the Girl Scouts because it “promotes lesbianism” and movies like “Harry Potter” and “How To Train Your Dragon” for featuring “homosexual mentors provided to little boys” — a criticism he detailed at the rally with Cruz — Swanson said that people must put into effect Jesus’ teaching against debasing children with such “movies that promote homosexuality or organizations that promote homosexuality.”
You know, it occurs to me to wonder just how much people are expected to put up with.
To wit, some months ago, this guy I know just sort of lost it. I'm not sure what happened, but where in prior times political correctness would have called for us to respect the diversity of his beliefs while we fought over whether or not he was entitled to enforce those beliefs against others, at some point he just gave up on trying to assert any pretense of respectability. As a result, he's spent several months basically reciting old hate speech about things that aren't masculine enough for him―namely women and homosexuals―under this really bizarre, moronic pretense that this somehow constitutes some manner of thoughtful discourse. I mean, it's not like he comes up with anything new; it's literally just reciting all the old supremacist stuff we've heard for so many years. It's a shame, actually; my lifetime is full of instruction and custom about diversity, and how we're supposed to respect opposing beliefs, but at some point that gave way to the proposition that bigotry deserves respect.
It's one thing, for instance, to recall a hazy once upon a time when white supremacists were dumb enough to argue that rejection of hate speech was its own form of bigotry. As with all such stupid notions, we can only be equal when that particular group is granted extraordinary supremacism. Christians, men, white people; I mean, shit, you know, it's bigotry to suggest anything that could possibly be construed as untoward about bigoted behavior, so the only fair thing is to empower bigotry and its requisite unfairness.
At some point, it does occur to me to wonder just how stupid these people are. Because it's not just some hazy once-upon-a-memory; this is what some people are reduced to in desperate hope of retaining some privilege of grinding others under their heel for sport.
And, you know, there is a lot I might say about Christians, or conservatives, or even conservative Christians, but that, apparently, is still too general; because while Kevin Swanson leads a small congregation, he receives enough support to continue embarrassing Christians, and Christians keep supporting his efforts, and all the while conservative Christians who probably don't appreciate being reminded what terrible human beings they are for the fact of their bigotry don't seem to have any interest in distancing themselves from bigotry.
It is also understandable that more liberalized Christians would not rush to play the role of accuser, but that's the thing; there's no effective counterpoint coming from those quarters. Future generations will not spare the sects that did not so much take part as sit by and play Pilate. When "Christian" is an infamous word, it will be too late for all the rest to plead their innocence.
On our side of this debate aisle, we do everything we can to remember that Kevin Swanson and his ilk are poor stewards and representatives of the Gospel. But it's not just Swanson. He just happens to be the spectacular idiot of the day.
Look, what are we supposed to think? What, that these amorphous masses aren't bigots themselves, but for totally innocent reasons just happen to be satisfied supporting this manner of judgment and hatred?
And in the end, you know ... okay. It isn't so nonsensical as to be impossible; rather, such an outcome does accord with certain expectations―unfortunately, these are among the lowest, most cynical of expectations.
But that's fine. In the end it turns out these people feel okay about giving aid and comfort and legitimization to bigotry.
And that is a very good thing to know.
There is irony there, too, albeit at least a little sickening. When I was young there existed an abstract standard, a sort of tacit nod to judgmentalism that is, of course, easy enough to sympathize: This is not the sort of person I would let be around my children.
And I don't think those judgmental folk ever intended that such a standard should include Christianity, "Middle America" had the term existed back then, or traditional family values. Such, however, are the values they have fashioned.
Or, as we post-Freudians say, if you let them keep talking, they will eventually tell us the truth. And they have. In the end, I don't appreciate these people being anywhere near my daughter. They are, quite simply, dangerous.
I wonder, if I could ask all the people I might recall ever saying such things, would they forget they ever said it? My generation, at least, seems in crisis. The Boomers, too. It turns out it's hard to learn certain lessons of history when people are too ashamed of themselves to admit the history exists.
Tashman, Brian. "Cruz-Aligned Pastor: Execute Girl Scout Leaders For 'Promoting Homosexuality'". Right Wing Watch. 14 March 2016. RightWingWatch.org. 15 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1M6nNcR
Separate names with a comma.