LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

I vote throw the bigot in jail for obstruction of justice and restitution of court fees and move on. We don't have time for this bullshit.

I second the polar bear's motion. There is much wisdom to be had in this world if people could only learn to listen to the ideals of snarling carnivorous beasts.

edited 1st Sep '15 10:08:03 AM by TobiasDrake

As much as making of her a victim or a martyr it seems to be to advocate chugging her in prison, it is not always a matter of how to mantain the status quo of peace from a reactionary group, but rather what we need to do to ensure the basic rights of human beings

Listen, I am full on game for peace and shit but this is a tantrum. It is not a glorified blaze of human rights defense and stance against opression it is just a little child throwing a tantrum because they are not getting their way. Removing her from her post and putting her in jail for a couple of days is simply proving that the law is flexible in a place it was already agreed it was not flexible on.

It's not even a tantrum, it's an attempt to force her version of religious law on the country.

I suggest people stop suing her, instead they should start suing the state, which is refusing to provide marriage licences despite it being ordered to. Until she either resigns or is removed from her position she is acting in behalf of the state goverment, as such her actions are there responsibility.

Well, it is an adult's tantrum.

In this case, it's the sole discretion of the Federal District Judge as to what to do with her, which can be informed by pleas from the plaintiffs or her attorneys, but it's up to the judge alone to determine jail or fines, or how much of either.

Edit: I've also heard (not being a lawyer is often a burden) that she could be liable for civil suit as an individual, now that she knows for a fact that what she's doing has no judicial sanction.

edited 1st Sep '15 10:43:18 AM by Ogodei

Vatican says no trans godparents allowed

Gay Teen Worried He Might Be Christian, brought to you by America's finest news source.

Swear we've had that already.

It's fairly old. One of the Onion's classics.

Let's just say that I had such high expectations of the current pope mainly because of his corruption cleaning powers that now I'm in Hype Backlash mode mainly cause no go on birth control. (And I am not privileged enough to live in a country which just tells the Roman Catholic Church to go fuck themselves.)

So yeah, until further notice, imho the RCC is bastion of sexism and homophobia.

I love the explanation of how the Vatican ain't discriminatin' cuz being a godparent is a time honored tradition with rules, regulations, and specific requirements that trans people just happen to not meet. Doin' a heckuva job, Frankie.

Westboros are hating on Kim Davis because of her three divorces.

When are Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and the rest going to speak out against this Christian-on-Christian persecution?

edited 5th Sep '15 11:58:39 PM by Morgikit

To be fair, is there anyone who hasn't spoken out against Westboro?

I don't have a link, but I did see something about Davis' husband^note which one, I'm not entirely suredemanding that the governor "do his job or retire" and let Kim out of jail. Which he's willing to do - as soon as she publically signs an affadavit that she'll stop being an obstructionist bigot.^note My understanding is that if she then breaks that, it will make it easier to impeach and/or prosecute her.

That governor better do what he says. He's got a gun, you know.

edited 6th Sep '15 12:15:15 PM by Morgikit

I saw a poster several pages back say he was raised in a religious background and he was taught explicitly that homosexuality was a sin. This makes me curious, at what age and in what context would you be taught this?

Because I was raised in the Episcopal Church and I was never told anything directly concerning homosexuality, and I have a hard time imagining that being the Sunday School lesson one day. The only times I remember homosexuality coming up in the church context were discussions aimed at older audiences around me, and those went over my head at the time. You see, as a pre-teen when I only had a vague notion of what "gay" meant, the Episcopal Church was experiencing a schism based on beliefs on homosexuality, and my church was on the pro-gay acceptance side. By the time I was old enough to really understand the issue, it was already settled, and I don't remember it coming up again. But even when homosexuality was controversial in the church, I don't think the debate ever involved what to explicitly teach children about the issue.

I'm reminded of that Louis Theroux documentary where he went to the WBC. At one point he saw this little girl (about four or five years old, tops) with one of their "God hates Fags" signs. He asked her if she knew what it meant. She didn't.

The subject rarely came up, even in the Pentecostal church I used to attend. But when it did, it was very much "homosexuals burn in hell, and anyone who says otherwise has been led astray by the devil".

I've no idea what they taught children on the subject. But I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even bring it up. Remember, the fundies would much rather young people not even know that "alternative lifestyles" are something that exists.

Homosexuals led the devil astray, and whomever burns otherwise has been said to hell

When we said they were flaming I don't think that's what we meant.

Well, not bringing it up is definitely the preferred option there, because it allows children to make up their own mind about the issue as they grow up instead of indoctrinating them into a certain belief. Especially in this day and age, where it seems highly unlikely that preteens won't learn about homosexuality at some point.

Coming over from LGBT Rights and America because my response to this article has more to do with religion than national politics.

Can I just say how much I hate that phrase? Because I hate that saying so, so much.

God created Adam. Eve only came about because Adam was a whiny bitch when God told him to choose an assistant; presented with all of Creation, Adam went, "Meh, not good enough," so God took one of Adam's ribs and made Eve.

God had no problem with an Adam and Steve status quo. He was even comfortable with Steve being a pig. Or a donkey. Or a tree. Whatever Adam wanted to help him tend the garden.

edited 10th Sep '15 11:16:45 AM by TobiasDrake

Not to mention in other traditions, it took god three tries to get Eve right.

Also, can I point out that the penis existing before women is, in and of itself, proof that "Sex exists purely for procreation" is total bunk? What, exactly, did God intend Adam to do with his wang before Eve came about?

edited 10th Sep '15 12:25:57 PM by TobiasDrake

Practice his balloon animal skills?

Peeing. That is all.

(cue canned laughter)