God loves all the sperms, zygotes and fetuses, but once people are born, screw 'em. These nutcases would choose leaving kids to rot in orphanages or bouncing from foster family to foster family over letting them live with caring, stable, secure families who want and love them.
Help them. Don't let the political agenda of some hate-filled homophobes result in the suffering of innocent children.
Help them. Don't let the political agenda of some hate-filled homophobes result in the suffering of innocent children.
26 comments:
whom do you mean when you say "religious right?" I'm "religious." I'm "right." I may even be "religious right." but I'm certainly not anti-children. ask my kid. he's likely to respond by saying something like "bah."
you characterize the "religious right" as homophobes, etc. could it be you are just as blind to the complexities of this huge group as they are to yours?
it seems you're angry about this particular issue, and that's understandable, but be careful before you go off on folks and friends who may otherwise be your allies.
By "religious right," I refer to the political group that is currently fighting to control our country -- the group that often can be found using homosexuals as wedges to motivate voters during elections.
This is the group that is giving Christianity a bad name of late. Not the kind Christians of my upbringing, or the ones you see in church week after week or in bible study and at the local mission, but the big-haired, money-grubbing pseudo-Christians you see on TV or hear on talk-radio.
I counted something like 2,857 unfair generalities within the original post and subsequent comments.
I need to go take a shower now. Ugh.
Oh, and no, I'm not blind to the complexities of the huge group, if by that you refer to Christians and/or political conservatives. I refer to the small splinter group of extremists who happen to be Christians and who have had a frightening amount of input into our national political agenda recently. I believe they've given themselves the label "religious right" (I certainly don't think they're either accurately religous or right).
Bill, as a journalist and a publisher, THAT'S your comment?
Ugh.
...I'm an editor, not a publisher. :)
And, yes, that is my comment.
And this, too:
The hypocritical spewing of overly simple, overly emotional, intellectually shaky (and dare I say dishonest?) blanket generalities of all types -- I dare say -- have begun to turn me off COMPLETELY -- to participating in blog-hosted conversations such as this one. (Well, this one isn't THAT bad, but provides a platform for some thoughts...)
Nobody wins in the blogosphere. Divisiveness just keeps going and going and going. And to what end?
Both "sides" just get further entrenched in their overly simple, overly emotional, intellectually shakey (and dare I say dishonest?) stances while other people are casually strolling through the middle with bombs.
"Common groud" no longer exists in Amercia -- especially where it's needed most.
Thus, my utter distaste for political parties: the official sanctioning bodies of the slow, embarrassing self-destruction of America.
Bow to your heroes and have a nice night.
Ugh.
If I remember this story correctly, this family has adopted six or seven children, I think two have since passed. All of them are HIV positive. One of the fathers gave up his job to care for these children. The only child the state of florida cares about is the one who serocoverted to a hiv negative status early on deeming him "adoptable". However, the state doesn't give a damn about the other four and wouldn't care about him had he not sero-converted.
I remember shortly after this story broke out of the "rosie is coming out the closet to help this family" I read a story about a case manager in florida. She had no options for six children, all girls. She couldn't place them. Frustrated, she decided to put them up in a hotel unsupervised. Later, a woman reported to the state that the girls had been drinking at the pool during their days and having sex with the men in the hotels. But thank god, they weren't in homosexual households! God Bless Anita Bryant, patron saint of the holier than thou.
And Bill, come on, at least try. Ugh.
P.S. -- I, too, am guilty of what I despise, and in order to try to be a better person, I am trying to "stay out of it."
...If that makes any sense.
Bill~disregard earlier statement, it was before you re-replied.
Generalities? I don't think so. I don't blame republicans or christians or any other general group for the anti-children homophobic agenda of a small group of extremists who are commonly referred to as the religious right. I know it's shorthand, but if you don't think the buzzword has validity, see what google does with it. And you know who they are as well as I do.
Go look at their web sites and read some their own words. Falwell, Dobson, Bauer, Robertson... Focus on the Family, OurAmericanValues, the Alliance for Marriage...
These are the people who are taking over what used to be my republican party. If you want to associate yourself with these people, fine. If you'd like to offer an alternate definition or term, please do, but you can't deny that these people have a huge influence over the republican party and current policy.
from my perspective, lumping Falwell and Dobson in the same group is a gross mischaracterization. which was sorta the idea behind my original question. but I could see how from your perspective they represent the same camp, which I find kinda sad.
>"Generalities? I don't think so. I don't blame republicans or christians or any other general group for the anti-children homophobic agenda of a small group of extremists who are commonly referred to as the religious right."
You REALLY don't think you are speaking in generalities here?
And when did I EVER say I associated myself with "these people?"
Did I not just (rather nastily) offer my disdain for political parties?
I would argue -- and call me crazy here -- that there is a difference between disagreeing with someone's lifestyle based on religious beliefs and actually being afraid of them.
I think 'homophobia' is a useless term, and the sooner both sides can get down to what the ACTUAL differences of opinion are, the sooner some resolution will take place. For both sides.
I don't see any difference in these people having an influence over the republican party and current policy and left-leaning folks having an influence over the democrat party and current policy when they are in power...
It's the same thing.
No, Bill, it's not the same thing. We're not talking about "right-leaning" folks here. We're talking about extremists, and they're pushing the right-leaning folks (moderate republicans) out of the picture. When the Democrats were in charge, they didn't let the radical left wing take control (they couldn't have even if they wanted to, since the republicans controlled congress).
Further, there's a difference between disapproving of a person (let's be clear here -- being gay is not a "lifestyle" any more than being hetero is) based on religious beliefs and aggressively taking advantage of ignorant people's fear of gay people and using it as a political wedge to score points during an election. In the first case, a person has an opinion about something (which, btw, is actually none of his/her damn business), and in the second case, a person is cynically making political hay of of a personal issue.
How are they pushing them out of the picture? What picture? We can all still vote can't we? The Republicans' (extremists and non-extremists) candidate still won the Presidential election, didn't he? Don't kid yourself that you, too, aren't trying to coddle political sympathy here as well. THIS IS HOW POLITICS ARE PLAYED AND WHY I DON"T LIKE THEM.
If a politician catered TO gay people and their supporters "as a political wedge to score points during an election," it would be OK, though, right?
There is a difference between disapproving of a PERSON and a disapproving of a person's LIFESTYLE. I believe there's something alluding to that in the Bible.
Furthermore, aren't LEFT extremists trying to take political advantage of left-leaning people's fears that conservatives are going to ruin the universe?
The choice of "ignorant" is a funny word here:
Ignorant, but voting democrat = needs our help, feel sorry for them. Right?
Ignorant, but voting republican = to hell with them. Right?
It's hard to condemn rampant and illicit bias with equal-yet-opposite rampant and illicit bias.
I know, though. It"s "none of my damn business."
"If a politician catered TO gay people and their supporters "as a political wedge to score points during an election," it would be OK, though, right? "
Bill, I can be legally fired in 36 states for saying "I am gay". I can't join the army and serve if I admit to who I am (double darn). I am also denied 1,049 federal benefits that are available to my sister. Here in Tennessee, I can only adopt a baby if all the heterosexual couples have been asked first. Politicians are HARDLY "catering" to me. As I have told many candidates, I am looking for a candidate who will RESPRESENT me, not tolerate me.
It's a numbers game. The homosexual population is comparatively small in the U.S. Most people, then, are not homosexual. I would further argue that more people are against homosexuality in the U.S. than there are homosexuals in the country.
...But each vote counts the same, so it doesn't pay for a politican to "represent" a minority when it will kill his chance with the majority. Thus, he is forced to appease and tolerate. Politics is popularity contest. And they're all guilty of it.
I have no moral judgement on this, just pointing out the situation.
But what Alice is saying is absolutely right. During the last election, Karl Rove brilliantly convinced the heartland that of the issues: education, employment, the war, economy, that homosexuality was what should really concern them. Pat Robertson said something to the affect of the biggest risk to this country is not the terrorist, but gay people wanting to marry. In 2001, Mr. Robertson stated that we were attacked BECAUSE God no longer favors our country because we have gays and lesbians living here! James Dobson stood on a stage with Bill "you can catch AIDS from tears" Frist catering to his extremist christian army.
Mr. Robertson and the Christian extremists want to oppress an entire class of people simply because they don't behave according to Christian religious doctrine.
You said, "There is a difference between disapproving of a PERSON and a disapproving of a person's LIFESTYLE. I believe there's something alluding to that in the Bible." There is also a difference of disapproving of a person's SEXUAL ORIENTATION and denying them equality.
We cannot allow the doctrine of oppression to take hold in America. To force Christian morality on those who are not Christian is as abhorrent an attack on humanity as the Holocaust.
woah. you just lost 90something percent of us with that attempted correlation. yikes.
Did you take a quick survey, Bob? And yes, I know it was extreme. that was the point.
no, I've learned to trust my instincts on such things. I'm seldom wrong :-P
so we'll ignore your obvious flame-bait and move on....I think a reason for the "forcing of Christian morality" is the perception of "forcing of gay (im)morality." the right just doesnt want gay-ness to be normalized. so it seems the harder you push, the harder you'll get pushed back.
But do you think that morality is a fair fight for the courts. OR would it be better to wage religious fights in the church on your knees in prayer. I think the bible says something to the affect of the only way to fight sin is through prayer. Judgement is only for the big guy.
Not in those words, of course.
did somebody just make a holocaust reference? Can we not do that, for straight sensitivity reasons, its such a highly unproductive tactic. Analogous to the rhetorical tactics the right uses on stuff.
that's a tough one. it seems it's not just a question of morality, as of course morality cant be legistlated.
murder is wrong, and lying is wrong, but lying isnt outlawed much. murder is outlawed b/c it's bad for society, right? of course the "right" think normalizing homosexuality is not only wrong, but bad for society. so maybe that's why the fight has been taken to the courts, etc. a big mess, for sure.
But I would argue that symptoms of homophobia are bad for society. For instance, the down-low movement is raging in the african american community,hate crimes, suicide, families being torn apart, people living a lie etc....
To me, it's strange. I lived my life until five years ago promised the same things everyone else wants: grow up, find a job, find a husband, buy a house, have children. I lived with a man who was horribly abusive to me. I finally left him and my heart was won over by the most incredible person I've ever met. She is everything I've ever wanted and more because now everything I've denied for so long makes sense. Suddenly, THAT is the real crime. Suddenly, everything I was promised before isn't a reality anymore. My *friends* thought I was better off before getting the snot knocked out of me. Suddenly what I do is everyone's business.
I picked one hell of a climate to come out in.
quite a discussion going on here. Orientation, lifestyle, sex...
the way i see it, the homophobic right doesn't really take (political) issue with sexual orientation. it doesn't help that they refuse to understand the fact that it is orientation. what they say is, whether or not it is "orientation" that can't be chosen - it is also lifestyle, which is chosen, and should not be "normalized". they are using the term "lifestyle" incorrectly: true. i've known "practicing" gay people who have a lifestyle much more similar to my heterosexual parents' lifestyle than to the lifestyles of many of their age cohorts in the gay community. so they don't really object to "the homosexual lifestyle" (though they may object to the lifestyles of promiscuous, abusive, or addictive gay people - and there is a subset of the community that, unfortunately, seems to trend in those directions)... what they really object to, and wish not to see "normalized" is gay sex.
they refuse to understand (or admit) that gay sex is essential to the quality of life of gay persons - just as heterosexual sex is essential to the quality of life of straights, and so they kid themselves that they do nothing wrong by trying to keep a taboo around gay sex.
their attitude and actions are very destructive, though they will never admit it. the taboo they want to keep strong is the same taboo that drives many gays - especially teens - to suicide. and to promiscuity (there being no healthy moral structure to encourage homosexual monogamy). and to drugs (to cope). the laws they write discourage monogamy by denying gay couples the same rights as straights. the laws they write force the destruction or prohibition of healthy families like the one alice was posting about in the OP. the laws they advocate would allow an assortment of other forms of discrimination against gays - up to, and including, the outright banning of gay sex. basically, their efforts serve to destroy in the gay community everything they advocate so strongly for in the straight community.
they are doing great harm, and will not acknowledge it.
and it doesn't matter if their deeds are religiously motivated or not. no one gives the christian science people a pass for denying their children medicine just because it is a religious practice. religious or not, it is wrong, and we should condemn it, and do our best to educate the religious right (those among them who actually care) about the harm they are doing.
if we can convince joe church that his pastor, falwell, dobson, frist, santorum, and others are hurting people, and are wrong, then joe church will gladly pull his support. that's when the religious right will cease to have power over the american government. probably not before then.
[/soapbox]
[soapbox]
I respect the gay community for a number of things, things that I don't respect the Reformed/Presbyterian slice of the religious right (of which I guess i'm a part).
The first is that the gay community (at least, the gay community I have connection with and/or see portrayed in mass media) practice good hygiene and traditionally have an excellent sense of fashion, style, and aesthetic pleasantness. I don't mean this as some sort of trite stereotype, I really respect this.
The second is that the gay community, unless the person is very attractive, does not wear ugly faded denim. This is a problem, as we can see discussed here.
Debates on the gay community's protection of our urban historical assets aside, these are a couple of things the Christian right needs to admit the Gay Community has over them in spades.
If we'd just start talking about the important issues, there'd be no hating goin' on.
Post a Comment