‘No gay sex’ logo

I keep reading crap like this (usually from Christian fundamentalists) and I keep thinking “Why do you care?”  I mean really… there’s a lot of behaviors that I don’t like, but you don’t see me trying to have country bars banned from existence just because I don’t like them. I’m not trying to be snide (for a change). I just really, sincerely don’t get why religious people care about so-called ‘gay issues’. If no one’s trying to put a dick in your mouth, why protest, yell, scream, and try to ban it?

I’m usually pretty good at understanding religious zeal, but this one absolutely eludes me. Regardless of gender, I just don’t get why Fundamentalists care so much that people they’ve never met are having sex with other people they’ve never met. It just seems absurd.



Polish far-right’s ‘no gay sex’ logo sparks anger

Polish gay rights campaigners on Wednesday denounced a court ruling that allowed a far-right movement to formally register a homophobic symbol as one of its logos. [Full Story]





Twitter del.icio.us Digg Facebook linked-in Yahoo Buzz StumbleUpon

Comments

18 Responses to “‘No gay sex’ logo”
  1. Anita says:

    Gay people aren’t “just” having sex in the same way that heterosexuals “just” have pre-marital sex. They have a far bigger agenda that is sickening. A lot of people are completely unaware of this agenda which involves the erosion of religious freedom and civil liberties. For instance, if you were a bed and breakfast owner being forced to allow a gay couple to use one of your rooms, under pain of a big human rights commission court case and fine, you might feel your beliefs are being trampled on. Likewise a wedding cake maker MUST now bake a “wedding” cake for a lesbian couple. Then there’s the whole issue of your children at school being taught things that are completely against your beliefs and you not having a say. In many cases, you cannot receive a warning and pull your child out from the class. If you are a minister stating just the health risks of the homosexual lifestyle, which gays never seem to want to hear about, you could be accused of hate speech. There are hundreds of implications.

  2. admin says:

    Can you POSSIBLY argue that Gays aren’t beaten, abused, and murdered every day because of their sexual orientation? You talk about the rights the poor religious folks that hate gays and consider them a vile abomination, but gays are not out there in pickup trucks trying to beat the hell out of Catholics every weekend.

    And wow… how do you survive in the world? Human rights are HUMAN rights, not straight or Catholic rights. You realize that your arguments sound exactly like KKK members arguing against stores having to sell to “niggers” back in the 1960′s? The laws exist to protect individuals against undue hardships based n bias and prejudice.

    As to what kids are taught, if it’s real and factual it can be taught as far as I’m concerned. That’s kind of the definition of an education. Even if I thought gay sex was vile, evil, and should never happen, I would still advocate it be taught in school as a reality in much the same way any other social ills should be taught. As is, it’s just part of real life. Denying that doesn’t do the kid any good. Worse yet, silence and homeschooling on these issues just sets us up for a whole new generation that feels ‘killing fags’ is a great idea, and gays should not be allowed to exist. We still have WAY too many people that think this way.

    As to the supposed health risks, the KKK used that argument as well when trying to stop mixed marriages. In reality, there’s no difference between a straight blowjob and a gay blowjob. There’s no difference between straight anal sex and gay anal sex. Likewise, there is no difference between straight and gay sex with multiple partners. Medically, there is no difference in the risks or disease associated with these actions. It’s only your bias against gays that somehow makes it worse in your eyes..

  3. Anita says:

    I came up with a nice long reply which I tried to send. I got a message that my post sounded too spammy and to try again, and all my text was obliterated. Which words triggered that?

  4. admin says:

    If you got that reply it was an automatic thing… I never filter responses. I will look into it asap.

  5. admin says:

    You are not in the banned list on my site, nor do I see any deleted posts.

  6. Bill says:

    Anita, I’m very sorry you find the “gay agenda” sickening. You are living a homophobic lifestyle, and it is absolutely your choice to so live. It is difficult living with revulsion to natural phenomena, such as others who cringe at the sight of an African-American man and Euro-American woman (substitute “-Canadian” as needed) holding hands, infant defecation, spiders, or clear evidence of biological evolution. If you choose to insist that homosexuality is not “natural,” then you are also choosing to ignore evidence beyond what you hear from the pulpit. Living in ignorance is the entry point to living in fear, hence your revulsion.

    Your choice to live this way includes your right to assemble with others who also fear things many others do not. However, your freedoms to insulate your existence in this manner ends at the point you wish to infringe on the rights of others to live their lives without discrimination and violence. In my experience with numerous male and female gay friends, including my adult son, the thing you call an “agenda” is simply their fervent desire to live without constant and institutionalized reminders that they are reviled by a significant minority of their fellow citizens.

    I am personally ecstatic that my son now lives in New York where he may marry if he chooses. He will make a fabulous parent, and there will be babies for him to love, produced by a veritable army of irresponsible heterosexuals (It takes a village, Anita). He lives in a place where he is no longer marginalized, forced to live an unstable “alternative lifestyle” because of whom he loves. He will be able to have a normal life, despite your personal or religious definition of “normal.”

    And I have no doubt he will find a baker more than thrilled to sell them a bride-free cake.

  7. Anita says:

    In your first post, you stated, “there’s lots of behaviours I don’t like” in reference to gay issues. Being gay isn’t comparable to being black because it consists of a series of behaviours that are changeable, unlike having a particular skin color which is not. The whole reason gays are caught up with the concept of “coming out” is because you can’t know somebody is gay until they tell you.

    At no point in history have gays received more support than they do now by institutions. Banks, companies, universities, the medical field, and numerous other institutions have now capitulated to their beliefs.

    More another time…

  8. admin says:

    Your assumption in this is that the behaviors are ones that NEED changing. Unless what a person is doing is hurting others, society has no right to interfere. Christians in particular don’t believe this, which is why they teach that gays need to be changed, despite the law. Fundamentally, I have no more right to demand a gay person be straight than I have to stop a Catholic from being Catholic. They are behavior choices, and society can not interfere until those choices cause harm. If you want to speak against it, fine. But religions go way beyond this and advocate outright hatred and anger (though they couch it by saying they only hate the sin, not the sinner. Newsflash: The sinner is the one getting the shit beat out of him in school every day for being gay.) Humorous note for you: A ‘faggot’ is actually a bundle of sticks used to get a fire going. Gays are called “faggots” because the Catholics used to used to burn them alive during the witch trials. The witch was tied above the flames, but the gays were bound and tossed into the actual fire below. Ergo, they were ‘faggots’, fire kindling. Regardless of what you think the Church teaches about gays, this is how many, many people would still treat them if they were allowed to.

  9. Bill says:

    At no point in history have gays received more support than they do now by institutions. Banks, companies, universities, the medical field, and numerous other institutions have now capitulated to their beliefs.

    You may find this book of some interest:

    http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0670022950

    As much as one may be inclined to conclude humanity is bent on creating hell right here on Earth, Harold Pinker comes to a different conclusion, that we are actually evolving to become more humane, with religious and other violence on the decline. We may at a point in history in which we are becoming more mature, despite ourselves.

  10. Anita says:

    Bill stated, “However, your freedoms to insulate your existence in this manner ends at the point you wish to infringe on the rights of others to live their lives without discrimination and violence.”

    If you force a Christian church to hold a function for a gay wedding reception, if you force Christians to do any of the things in my first post, you are not giving us the same freedoms you demand for yourself. It is discrimination for a Church to not allow such “wedding” celebration, but it is a just discrimination based on religious belief. A gay person can always find the local unitarian parish, or gay baker or whatever. To force us to act against our beliefs feels to us like having a dick forced down our throats, as Will so eloquently puts it.

    Like all liberals you started attacking me by describing me as homophobic, insulated etc. instead of discussing the issues: religious freedom and civil liberties.

    For me, it’s an issue of morality, not normalcy or what comes naturally. And it’s a health issue. I don’t agree with Will’s points on their medical risks.

    And Will’s original post was likely disingenuous because he knows darn well why religious people do not accept gay behaviours. He has all the standard replies to my points.

  11. admin says:

    First off, the ONLY mention of gay sex in the whole Bible is in Leviticus, where it is described that a “man should not lay with a man as a woman, as this is detestable to the Lord”, then a chapter later when it says the penalty should be death by stoning and ” their blood shall be on their own hands”. If you read Leviticus, though, you will find that the same is said of eating shellfish, and the punishment is similar. Should we then stone everyone who goes to Red Lobster? Religious people don’t accept gay behavior because of their own personal beliefs, not because of biblical sanctions. [In Catholicism, these personal beliefs have been codified in canon over the years, as voted on by councils of bishops, not Gods.]

    And no one… NO ONE… is trying to force Catholics to marry gays. Were that the case I would side with the Catholics, but I’ve never seen it. Gays want the LAW to reflect their marriage, and don’t care about Catholics. The fight against gay marriage is one of LAW, not church. They can “sanctify” their marriage in many places other than Catholic churches, which is why it’s so ridiculous that Catholics oppose it so vehemently.

    Personally, I think they need to drop the word MARRIAGE from all legal documents, issue CIVIL UNION certificates, and leave the issue of “marriage” as a religious thing between you and your priest, imam, or rabbi. All the government needs to know is who your taxes, pensions, and emergency contacts are with. They don’t need to know about a contract between you and God over who you are going to have sex with.

    And Anita: The line between religious freedoms and civil liberties is absolutely clear. Wherever your belief justifies forcing a person to change a behavior that doesn’t effect you, you are violating a civil right. Wherever the law interferes with a religious belief that doesn’t hurt anyone, you are transgressing on religious freedoms. Catholic opposition to the gay lifestyle absolutely extends the religious belief far beyond the doors of the church, and tries to force others to live by your religious beliefs. [What you call "moral" is not moral outside of your church, basically. Only among those who agree with your doctrine is homosexuality 'immoral'. That's a pretty small contingent when you look at the world.]

    I’d love to hear why you disagree with the medical points I raised. Never quite understood how a gay blowjob was any more or less medically dangerous than a straight blowjob. Same with anal sex.

    Note: If you want to argue that anal sex is medically problematic, then argue against anal sex, not the gay lifestyle. Many (if not most) gays don’t have anal sex, and usually stick to oral. But it’s done by both straight and gay couples, ergo any medical problems that arise from it are not exclusively “gay” issues.

  12. Bill says:

    Anita, I’m big on data. If you’d like to study up on the particulars of the AIDS epidemic, please reference http://www.who.int/hiv/data/en/. You will note the huge number of children currently infected with HIV, and I promise you they were not produced by gay intercourse.

    If you check this CDC resource, you will see that worldwide, HIV is a largely heterosexual phenomenon. That it hugely impacts the gay male community in the US is an epidemiological artifact, and is now immaterial: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5306a3.htm

    I have yet to hear any statute anywhere that requires any church or minister to perform any kind of marriage they choose to not perform. My understanding is that priests routinely refuse to marry heterosexual couples comprised of marginally Catholic adherents. Your clinging to the right to civilly discriminate against gay persons because someone has told you churches will be forced to perform gay marriages makes as much sense as those who argue that if gays can marry, next we’ll see people demanding to be able to marry animals. As Will points out, the right of individuals to make a contract with another is a civil one. Religious doctrine has no place in the formation of democratic principles, hence the struggle to wrest yet one more issue from the grip of the Vatican as people struggle to live their lives.

    Homophobia is indeed at the root of your argument. You need to take a little closer look at the very shallow foundation of your argument.

  13. Anita says:

    If you read my post carefully, I did not state that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages, Bill.
    I wrote “If you force a Christian church to hold a function for a gay wedding reception”. This means the rental of your church space, often the basement, for the purposes of the reception that customarily takes place after a wedding.

  14. Anita says:

    Here is an example of how a Catholic Knights of Columbus group ended up being dragged through a human rights trial for not renting a hall to two lesbians for their wedding, so upping the ante from my original point about renting space for just the reception: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1951/21/5121302
    Don’t forget to click on the link which show some pictures.

  15. admin says:

    Therein lies a problem. When a church rents stuff out, they cease to be churches under the law and become corporations/landlords. In this case you are asking that the money-making corporation (that is the church) be exempt from the same rules that everyone else who rents halls is subject to: SECULAR TRADE LAWS. In short, as soon as the church starts a commercial enterprise, the ‘morality-bubble’ that they act in is popped, and they must then play by the same rules as any other landlord or corporation.

    If they are merely donating space to their congregants and no rent is collected, then it is a different matter. When the church goes commercial and starts making money on rentals, they are subject to the same rules as everyone else who rents halls. But no one is forcing the church to rent halls, so no force is being applied to the faith, only to the commercial venture.

    So yes, a church hall that is commercially available (from which the church makes money) is then subject to secular laws, and that includes allowing gays equal opportunity to rent a space that is declared commercially available.

    Your opposition to this is quite similar to mosque that starts renting halls out and tries to ban Jews from renting their space because they see Jews as unclean and unworthy. If they are going to make something commercially available, it has to be fair.

  16. admin says:

    Simple and easy: If the KoC don’t want to rent to lesbians, then they don’t rent to anybody. No one is forcing the KoC to be landlords as well as as religious order. That is their choice. But in doing so they must assume the responsibilities of every other landlord in Canada, and that means abiding by the discrimination laws. No one is stopping them from practicing their faith exactly as they please. What is at issue is their right to claim a special, secular-commercial status above all the other landlords by virtue of what they believe.

    Again, no one is stopping them from believing as they wish. They are merely being forced to abide by the same rules that every other landlord must abide by.

    In a world where everyone turns against Catholics, this same law would protect you and yours from being adversely affected by Catholic-haters. It’s what would ensure that you have the same rights to an apartment, hall, or any other rental even if everyone around you hated what you believed and wanted you dead because of it (I think here of the Jews in Germany, not the Catholics).

    Protection for one is protection for all.

  17. admin says:

    I actually disagree with the tribunal’s decision.on this one. In the end it was found that the KoC had a reasonable expectation to not have to rent to opponents of their views, but were given a $1000.00 fine only because they should have expressed those views clearly, and directed the couple to a different venue rather than engaging them in debate. So, bad example from you on this one as your side actually won the judgement and the KoC were absolved of discrimination, and only mildly fined for (basically) being rude and confrontational about it all.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree