Stuff you LOVE, baby

[ZeaLitY]

http://britatheist.blogspot.com/2011/12/uk-court-christians-banned-from.html

[tushantin]

This my tribute painting to the Occupy movement.  I was really inspired by all the peaceful and creative ways the occupiers were making their opinions heard, especially when the police try to clear them out, they've found ways to return in the form of tent balloons, book tents, and chalk people.

Even if you don't agree with the Occupy movement, you have to admit that they have imagination

Damn, I love yuumei so much!

[Lord J Esq]

http://britatheist.blogspot.com/2011/12/uk-court-christians-banned-from.html

I thought this was a parody where someone had replaced "atheist" or some such with "Christian" to make a point. Turns out this story is real, but only in a limited sense. It's from much earlier this year, when a court ruled that a specific couple couldn't be foster parents due to their homophobic view.

In my opinion that's solid reasoning for issuing a blanket ban, but that's not what happened here. We'll see what other courts say on similar cases.

[Katie Skyye]

http://britatheist.blogspot.com/2011/12/uk-court-christians-banned-from.html

This is not okay...

Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close because they refused to place children with homosexual couples.

...but neither is this.

...a child has likely missed out on finding a home, at a time when there is a desperate shortage of willing parents.

So I don't quite know what to think. They both seemed like good people, and surprisingly NOT homophobic. I can't vouch for whether they were telling the truth when they said "They were willing to love a child regardless of sexual orientation," but if so then I really don't see a problem. It seems like their attitude was not so much "DON'T BE GAY, IT'S BAD," as "it's fine if you're gay, and we love you, but we're not going to make a big song and dance routine about it." If anything they seem almost neutral on the subject--not pro-gay, but not actually saying anything against it.

I guess if they were noticeably homophobic or anti-gay I'd understand completely, but they really seem to be on the mild-to-nonexistent side of the homophobia scale...

Hmm, and I'm all for equality for gays*, but this also seems like GAYS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER PEOPLE NOW.

*I'm completely serious. I have several gay friends and I couldn't give a flying fuck whether they were straight or not. I don't judge people based on sexuality and neither should anyone else. They're just humans, and there are just as many terrible people in the gay community as in the straight community, and just as many awesome people in both, as well. I don't want anyone thinking I was being sarcastic, or "She's a Christian, she must hate gays at least a little," bullshit.

[Kodokami]

...but this also seems like GAYS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER PEOPLE NOW.

At the risk of sounding stark mad, is this (in a sense) not true at the moment? Those in the LGBT movement are part of a minority lacking in rights. They deserve those rights, and, if this and many other articles is anything to go by, they are progressing in that direction. I feel it is important that they achieve this goal as soon as possible. If you (and by "you" I mean anyone) have a dispute with my claim, go right ahead; correct me if I'm wrong.

I feel there is vital information I'm missing, so I won't comment on the article Z linked to right now.

[Katie Skyye]

...but this also seems like GAYS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER PEOPLE NOW.

Those in the LGBT movement are part of a minority lacking in rights. They deserve those rights, and, if this and many other articles is anything to go by, they are progressing in that direction. I feel it is important that they achieve this goal as soon as possible.

I agree, but there is a difference between making their rights a priority and taking steps to achieve that, than steamrolling over everyone else to do so.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. Gay, Black, Christian, Athiest, Asian, whatever! We're all just people. I wish everyone could see it that way.

[Kodokami]

I agree, but there is a difference between making their rights a priority and taking steps to achieve that, than steamrolling over everyone else to do so.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. Gay, Black, Christian, Athiest, Asian, whatever! We're all just people. I wish everyone could see it that way.

Fair point. And yes, tolerance everywhere is good.

---
Stuff I love? I'm an Acacia Deva now.

[tushantin]

...but I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. Gay, Black, Christian, Athiest, Asian, whatever! We're all just people. I wish everyone could see it that way.

I second to this.

[Syna]

First of all, how is refusal to place children with gay couples any kind of neutrality? That is most certainly an acted-upon position. That is by definition totally discriminatory. It's not asking for "song and dance" to request a service of an organization based upon facilitating that service.

I don't know. To be quite blunt, I distrust the statement "we're all people." Almost without exception, I have heard it in the context of someone trying to talk down some point about the discrimination of a group like GLBT people, minorities, women, etc.

And of course that's not how you meant to use it, Katie, but I do feel that discrimination against GLBT people differs in character from everyone else on your list, just as the issues of all the others differ from GLBT ones. Not that GLBTs are more important, necessarily, but those particular circumstances merit different approaches.

And to be frank, there are cases in which I am perfectly OK with other people being "steamrollered" or inconvenienced to pave way for GLBT rights, just as I am fine with that treatment if it will advance the situation of minorities. I don't see it as a given that equality can and should involve everyone remaining perfectly comfortable.

We are all people, and our unity is vital, but the specifics of our demographics, culture, and situations make us different, and those differences are important as well. Especially in the context of human rights.

[tushantin]

And to be frank, there are cases in which I am perfectly OK with other people being "steamrollered" or inconvenienced to pave way for GLBT rights, just as I am fine with that treatment if it will advance the situation of minorities. I don't see it as a given that equality can and should involve everyone remaining perfectly comfortable.

I think I see where you're going with this (even rightly so), but it'd be a sin to assume so simply. Could you elaborate on that?

[Lord J Esq]

What's this discussion doing in the Love thread, anyway?

I'm completely serious. I have several gay friends and I couldn't give a flying fuck whether they were straight or not.

Maybe your fuck would fly if you stopped to appreciate the incredible hardships and discrimination to which gay people are regularly exposed, including in the United States right now. This begins at a young age when parents teach their children to discriminate against gay people, and nowhere does it come more strongly than from the religious quarter whose pathetic morals can't make room to recognize the humanity in people who happen to be non-heterosexual.

I can't presume to know, but I have to wonder if you've ever actually asked these gay friends of yours what kind of mistreatment, fear, and anxiety they've had to put up with in their lives because of being gay. And it galls me to think that the best possible explanation is that you and your friends lead lives of such privilege that you aren't subjected to the viler conduct of people in this country and simply aren't aware of its existence.

The article to which ZeaLitY linked referred to a court case that involved just one foster couple, but I for one would have no problem with, and would fully support, the denial of all foster parenthood applications from people whose religious morals inform a deliberate bigotry in them. Indeed, not even biological parents should be allowed to keep their children, if the parents harbor such views. Nowhere in the world is brainwashing and bigoted indoctrination more absolute than in the daily interactions of parents and their children...right under our noses!

[Sajainta]

Josh and Syna pretty much covered anything I was going to say on this topic.  I've seen the causes of discrimination against those who aren't straight.  I've seen homophobia destroy people's lives.  I've witnessed my transgendered brother being threatened into breaking up with his girlfriend so that she wouldn't be forced to leave college by her parents refusing to pay.  I've seen a friend being kicked out of college for being a lesbian.  I've seen friends being disowned by their parents.  I've heard story after story of friends who were mercilessly bullied because of their orientation.  I have friends too terrified to come out because they are so scared of the ramifications.  My former best friend was worried that his parents would refuse to let him stay in their house because he was bisexual.

As someone who is cis-gendered and identifies as being straight, I cannot comprehend what my brother, my brother's girlfriend (who is also a close friend of mine), and my former best friend go through every single day.  Homophobia makes me so angry I could vomit.  I'm not saying you're homophobic, Katie, or that you're unaware of what kind of struggles people who aren't straight face because I don't know you and I don't know what you've observed.  But I wanted to toss in my two cents.

And to be frank, there are cases in which I am perfectly OK with other people being "steamrollered" or inconvenienced to pave way for GLBT rights, just as I am fine with that treatment if it will advance the situation of minorities. I don't see it as a given that equality can and should involve everyone remaining perfectly comfortable.

For fucking sure.  Minorities have been inconvenienced and put in uncomfortable positions their entire lives.  So I honestly do not care if people in the majority (whether it's straight, white, male, etc.) are going to be uncomfortable if that means equality for those who have none.  They've been comfortable for millenia.

But in the spirit of this thread...it finally snowed in Chicago!  There isn't much, but still.  It snowed!  =D

[tushantin]

Minorities have been inconvenienced and put in uncomfortable positions their entire lives.  So I honestly do not care if people in the majority (whether it's straight, white, male, etc.) are going to be uncomfortable if that means equality for those who have none.  They've been comfortable for millenia.

Undoubtedly, and hence the question "are they really" goes out the question. New question is, what proximity and nature of comfort are we talking about? Trying to land a brick on a balance scale, even if in the favor of the minority, sounds a little too easy and poses incredible consequences beyond the comfort zones. Not that I'm advocating against minority comfort, but actually advocating any method that's too easy. SOPA? That's too easy too.

It's usually not about a sector's comfort zone, mind you, but actually the acceptance of diversity. Restrictive means work when you're 1) in power, 2) accessible to remote / underprivileged areas. But what about people beyond that line? What about the seething human nature, its fallacies, its primal fears? Weirdly enough, this basic primal fallacy doesn't just target sexual orientation, but how we perceive people. This fallacy has been the cause of discrimination against many Sikhs and Muslims throughout the globe too.

Saj I can understand that HOLY SHEEPS, THAT'S BEAUTIFUL!! We never get snow here!   MOAR PICS!

[Katie Skyye]

First of all, how is refusal to place children with gay couples any kind of neutrality?

I never said it was--or I never meant it was. I don't think it's neutral at all; in fact, it's pretty damn terrible.

As for not caring whether my friends are gay or not--I simply mean that it doesn't matter to me on a basis of how I treat them compared to the rest of my friends. I understand they they have different experiences, hardships, and worldviews--but why should I treat them differently than anyone else? I judge people based on their actions, and don't care about their sexuality. It's their business, not mine--and my sexuality is MY business, not theirs!
I don't think they should be discriminated against, and so I don't discriminate against them. But I'm not going to pay MORE attention to my gay friends than to my straight friends unless something serious is going on--but that would extend in the other direction, as well.

EDIT: And you know, Josh, it's bothered me all morning, so I'm going to append this post a bit:

Maybe your fuck would fly if you stopped to appreciate the incredible hardships and discrimination to which gay people are regularly exposed, including in the United States right now.

Yet again, you disagree with me and assume that I must not know what I'm talking about! Do you really think that I can have gay friends and not be aware of their gay problems? And perhaps even moreso--do you think I don't see the news? It's like you think I'm living under a rock, here!
--One of my friends came out to his parents recently, and their reaction was, "Well, if that's your choice," which is definitely the wrong response!
--One of my friends feels he can't come out to his parents
--None of them could donate blood even if they wanted to (that law should be repealed right now!!!)
--One of them regularly comes to me with his woes--some of them are gay-specific woes, some are just woes in general.
--It's all over the fucking internet, all the time!

You can't be around gay people without knowing the shit they go through, and you can't hang around a place like this, or even places like failblog and notalwaysright--not exactly breaking news sites--without hearing about discrimination against gays, so yes, I HAVE stopped to appreciate the incredible hardships because sometimes I'm the one my friends come to in order to talk about it to someone who is--shockingly!--unbiased on the subject!

Seriously, if you think I'd post on here, about such a serious subject on which so many people have very strong opinions on, without being damn sure of what I was going on about, you're delusional insane an idiot wrong. But yet again you've taken one part of my post out of context and completely missed the point.

This is all I have to say on the subject.

Stuff I love? Stoff I luve?
The fact that it takes an hour to get to school--15 minutes to get ready, a ten-minute walk, and a 35-minute bus ride. If someone were to drive me it would take about 20 minutes max, unless there's a fatality on teh road, in which case it takes OVER TWO HOURS to go EIGHT MILES. And you know what else I love? Walking up an icy hill while my fingers turn red and start burning like crazy and knowing that if I had turned back for gloves at the door like I wanted to, that I would have missed my bus. /sarcasm

But as for things I really love: Red. <3 That's the only one I can think of right now.

[Thought]

I love a good discussion!

@Syna, I think Katie was implying that the establishment of the proper rights of some should not infringe on the proper rights of others, regardless of the specifics of either group. Of course, if there are "improper rights," then those could be infringed upon, and the convenience of a group is utterly a non-factor.

@Katie, in turn, while freedom of thought (it'sa me!) is lovely, the problem comes in that thought often leads to action. Can people be "neutral" when their child is homosexual? I propose not, and so if this couple is not positive, then they are inherently negative. Consider what would happen if/when they are fostering a homosexual child. The child faces the injustices of the world, and then comes home. How will they react?! Will they give the child the strength to face and overcome those injustices (hence, a "positive" position towards homosexuality)? Will they try to get the child to not be gay (a negative position)? Remaining silent is not an option. Silence gives consent to the injustices. Will they tell the child that it is their responsibility to figure things out? That throws the child to the wild!

I feel there is vital information I'm missing, so I won't comment on the article Z linked to right now.

I quite agree. There seems to be several poorly defined concepts in that article, and a lot of missing pertinent information. For example, how are "traditional beliefs" defined, or even "mainstream Christianity?" To offer an anecdote, I have a friend who is engaged to a Christian pastor. Both are XY, both are open, and both are also fairly conservative. They hold, for example, the belief that sex is to be reserved for marriage. That is easily a more traditional Christian value on sexuality than any perspective on homosexuality (interesting history there, but perhaps better saved for a different time). Would that be enough to disqualify them from fostering or adopting under a similar ruling? From what is presented in the article, who knows.