It’s no secret to anyone who reads this blog that I am a supporter of LBGT rights. I find it very sad that in today’s world you can still be denied jobs, marriage and, in some cases, even your very life for something you didn’t choose. Even in supposedly developed countries, coming out as gay can lead to being disowned by one’s own family, a terrible act of ignorance to direct towards a loved one.
There is of course a powerful and all-too prevalent anti-homosexual message that stems from some quarter of the religious right. I wish to stress, this is not an attitude shared by everyone who is religious, but religious beliefs are often used as an excuse to enact certain laws or rules that curtail the rights of others, proceeding on the assumption that equal rights is, in some cases, a form of inequality for religious groups.
An example of this can be found in the discussion I had on the subject of same-sex marriage and cakes on Blogging Theology, and I’ve had several discussions with the author of Theology Archaeology along similar lines.
I’ve made it very clear that I don’t believe in using personal religious beliefs to impose rules upon others. The fairest system for creating rules of law is one that takes into account the rights of everyone, not just those who believe a specific version of a specific faith. I also don’t buy into hysteria, or the frankly bullshit (yes, I swore, I’m edgy!) notion that ‘the gays are coming to get us’. This is precisely the argument I came across today, and aside from the manner in which it tried to derail the actual discussion, it represents a lot of scare-mongering.
I’m not impressed by such a stance; it’s scare-mongering that got us Brexit and Trump. The following discussion (found here, if you want context) is what I’m referring to, and the post was made by someone who goes by the name Intellect. His comments are in purple, mine are in blue.
darthtimon
November 15, 2016 • 5:32 pm
Doesn’t strike me as the sort of decision I would want made on my behalf, especially considering how it would shape my future.
darthtimon
November 15, 2016 • 5:53 pm
That rather strikes as an excuse to deny young girls (and boys too, in some cases) the right to determine their own future.I say;
-But you are happy for the introduction of gay sex curriculum in under age schools to shape their future as gays
-You are happy for the sort of decision that would shape children(under age) to have sex and shape their lives as prostitutes and gay lesbians as young as the are and will marry same sex.
-You are happy when straight young girls( and boys too, in some cases) are bombarded with gay sex education at schools to change their straight path to gay path.That is the law today. Same sex marriage and gay sex curriculum at schools and that was made on behalf of young under age people to shape their future as gay.
If a child is straight and the law on its behalf today is to teach gay sex in school could shape his future as gay-from straight to gay as the decision made by today’s law to shape a child’s future as gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.
Some cities have started to make a man entry into women’s bathroom because he is gay, transgender etc. This decision made on behalf of mankind to shape all of us as gay has to be condemned by you darthtimon instead of stressing on new laws that weren’t present at the time of the prophets.
Thanks.
My reply:
Intellect, without wishing to be blunt, your post is a massive no -sequiter, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, arranged marriages where the child’s place in the decision-making of their own future is completely different to education about same-sex marriage and the existence of same-sex relationships (which is in turn completely different to this weird idea of a ‘gay sex curriculum’). I have never argued for laws or rules that would somehow shape a person into becoming gay (and frankly, the idea of some sort of conversion process is hysteria).
So the bottom line is, not only is much of your post not actually referring to the discussion at hand, it is a string of lies and, if i may continue to be blunt, hysterical nonsense.
I don’t really have too much to add to my reply. Intellect’s comments are a massive misconstruing of my position. The discussion in question relates to arranged marriages of young children to much older men in Christianity and Islam, and has nothing whatsoever to do with same-sex relationships or the education about same-sex relationships. It’s tempting to deconstruct Intellect’s statements regarding conversion of children to homosexuality (which is a load of rubbish, by the way), but that would be to miss the point – Intellect is at best, completely misunderstanding the argument and at worst, deliberately leading the discussion astray.
2
0
20
You continue to amaze me. Not only do you dissect the fear-mongering, ignorant arguments flooding the Internet, but you manage to reply to grammatically-flawed writing. It’s so bad, I’m pretty sure my cat sitting on my keyboard could write a better comment.
I get that you don’t want to deconstruct “Intellect’s” (oh, how ironic a username!) argument because it’s so far from the point of the post. Honestly, the only part they have in common is that they mention children. But this sort of mindset is dangerous. Spreading the idea that you can change someone’s sexuality fuels “conversion therapy.”