Some of you might remember the stupid tumblr fight I got in last week, I dunno. The argument the person made was that white people should consider that some common activities are insulting to other cultures, specifically travelling to third world countries and majoring in things like Asian…
I have no sympathy for these parents – while I’m sure they’re trying to raise their kids in a way they believe to be right, just as we are, the problem is that these people want our son’s classmates and friends to believe that his moms simply don’t exist. These are the people who would protect their children from being “introduced to homosexuality” by keeping them away from us. Say what you will about our family, but we don’t keep our children ignorant of the fact that homophobes, Republicans and religious people exist. We don’t even try. Why would we? These are concepts that they are, unfortunately, going to encounter in their lives – and likely sooner rather than later, thanks to people like Nancy French who think our truth is something their children can’t handle.
Southern Decadence has been a yearly event since its inception in 1972. Over the past 40 years, it’s been delayed or canceled twice because of hurricanes. That’s 2 years out of 40. The other 38 times, it was not affected by hurricanes.
What is a transsexual? How do you define a transsexual? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then transsexuals are simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
By all means, keep pretending that secular, legal marriage is the exclusive property of your religion and must be protected by ensuring that it exactly matches your particular faith’s concept of marriage. Such a claim can be handily dispatched on its own. But if that’s the line of argument you choose to pursue, you don’t get to pretend that your religion also owns the new “marriage-lite” that was created to divert the unworthy from your precious institution.
I just wanted to say that you are one of the most eloquent people I have ever had the pleasure of listening to/reading. Back a couple years, it was your youtube videos that really helped me come to terms my own atheism. Your words have changed my heart for the better.
Thanks! I’m really glad I’ve been able to help someone.
While I doubt anyone was hoping that Louisiana would be damaged by a hurricane, the limitations of prayer and those who use it are especially obvious in a case like this. Is there any reason that Peters and her team haven’t been praying for every tropical storm to veer out to sea instead of making landfall? Are Tampa and the RNC her only concern, and not the 19 people who were killed by Isaac in Haiti? Or, if they didn’t get their bright idea until the storm was already here, why not just pray for it to disappear or go back the way it came? If God can nudge a hurricane away from Republicans, why can’t he destroy it, or make it go backwards?
On every incarnation of this blog, I’ve had trouble with one thing I’d really like to grow better at - covering stories. Events which are super relevant to the topics at hand go completely unnoticed, or receive a half-assed summary days after everyone gets done talking about them.
However, I’ve managed, thanks to a particularly vile FTB, which has unfortunately been popping up in #religion, to stay informed on a big story in internet atheism. Leah Libresco, former blogger for the Patheos Atheist channel, converted to Catholicism recently. And of course, the atheist community being the friendly place it is, she was welcomed with open arms. Hah.
So, who really seems “weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis” here? Who do you think believes “America is the evil power occupying these poor Third World countries” and sees America as “the rogue nation that has to be pulled back”? Obama, or the guy who blames The Vagina Monologues, Hillary Clinton and “hundreds of homosexuals kissing each other” for provoking attacks by Islamic extremists?
How exactly are we supposed to tone down their own words? If they’re really going to argue that mere exposure to their own words is sufficient to inspire violence (a notion they strangely find unthinkable when others point out that their ongoing campaign of homophobia and transphobia might be in part responsible for anti-LGBT hatred and violence, LGBT youth suicide, family rejection and homelessness), then how can they hold others accountable for simply quoting what they said, but not themselves for actually saying it?
It seems like they think we’ll fail to notice that a solid half of the human population are women, identify as women, go about their lives as women, and no one has a problem with this. Being a woman is not, you know, rare or anything. Saying you’re a woman is not an outlandish claim to make. Expecting to be treated as a woman is not at all unreasonable. And yet they make it sound like this is the same as saying you’re the one Napoleon, as opposed to every other person in history who isn’t Napoleon. That simply doesn’t map to this.
Whether someone is pre-op or post-op tends to be one of the most common starting points for those who are trying to understand trans people, but it’s far from the most useful. It’s easy to see why this is the first thing that would come to mind: most of the world still regards gender as being defined by genitals, and this is a quick way to eliminate an unknown and determine where trans people fall within that system.
The problem is that this system is incomplete and inaccurate. What’s in someone’s pants is only one small part of who they are as a person. To trans people, this tends to be obvious, but to others, it may not be. Maybe it’s just something you have to experience firsthand: if your body, identity, and presentation are all in sync, you might think your genitals have something to do with the fact that you’re seen by others as your gender and treated appropriately. But for us, it’s clear that whether we’ve had genital surgery isn’t usually relevant in our day-to-day lives.
At the end of the day, you committed an unambiguous and inexcusable ethical violation, and the sole defense you’ve managed to muster is that Zinnia Jones was going to say something critical of Michael Payton’s remarks. Heaven forbid. Do you know what that tells me? It tells me you’re a pathetic, petty, flailing little whiner.
If you can acknowledge that it is possible for certain beliefs to be so troubling that you cannot accept them, then you can understand that this is only a matter of where we draw that line. And many of us draw the line at the belief that gay people’s love is immoral and should be legally unrecognized. If our commitment to tolerance has any teeth to it, then advocating tolerance of gay people necessarily precludes being okay with such anti-gay beliefs.
That’s just how immersed some people are in their religious worldview. They can’t conceive of any kind of difference of opinion without it being forced into the framework of either loving or hating their preferred deity. If you don’t agree with them, if you don’t follow their personal interpretation of religion, if you don’t patronize a business whose president declares that support for marriage equality means shaking our fist at God, that means you are literally hating some guy who died 2,000 years ago. This is nonsense. We don’t need to hate or love your Jesus – he’s just not that important. Try to understand that just because he matters to you, that doesn’t mean he matters to us. This is about what you said, and we simply don’t care about some unaccountable corpse to whom you attribute your beliefs.
Have they become any less dedicated to ensuring the continued social stigma and legal inequality of LGBT people, our relationships and our families now that you’ve called them “pro-family”? Does that mean they’re now just fine with us getting married, or being protected by nondiscrimination laws, or adopting children? Hell no. We still have to face the reality that they’re working every day to keep us from being accepted in society. I don’t care how “pro-family” they are. However you describe their intent, it has no bearing on the results.
But those who argue that a miserable life should make us any less queer are simply using an appeal to consequences against the very substance of who we are, and it’s just as fallacious as it is in any other circumstance. While some of them have made the choice to ignore who they are inside and live their lives differently for fear of these consequences, they can’t expect that their concerns will be equally compelling to the rest of us. As real as these unfortunate facts of life may be, so is the reality of who I am: My self is the truth. And like any other truth, it’s something I refuse to deny.
I was ready to let this pass without remark simply because I’ve become used to such blatant cognitive errors after spending the past four years on YouTube. But here we have the director of a national skeptic organization casually insulting the entirety of one of the most prominent networks of atheist writers. Imagine if David Silverman, Edwina Rogers, or Dan Barker had done this, without even an attempt at justifying their wholesale dismissal of over 30 distinct blogs and their authors, or their vacuous accusation of “groupthink” toward people who have committed the cardinal sin of sometimes agreeing about things.
Thanks to this pervasive misunderstanding, supporters of Chick-fil-A have deceived themselves into thinking they’re on some righteous crusade in defense of fundamental rights. They aren’t. The rights of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, anti-gay groups, and bigots in general were never at risk and never in question, because criticism and boycotts do nothing to prevent them from exercising their rights. But they do not have a right to our silence. They do not have a right to our agreement. And they do not have a right to our money. Those who pretend their patronage of Chick-fil-A does anything to protect freedom are cynically using an apparently noble cause as a cover for the less palatable act of consciously choosing to support a business that’s openly and unapologetically hostile to human equality.