mfioretti: homophobia*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

12 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. The untenable technophobia of the Left pushes us backwards in time. It leads not only to greater puritanism and an infuriating ideology of victimhood, but also to a pervasive abuse of the figure of “hate crime” to oppress and to censor on all sides. This is sweeping away freedoms of the press, satire, information and speech and even sexual freedoms.

    Do we want to fight hatred? Do we want to protect those threatened systematically because of their experience of discrimination? Very much, but not like this.

    Threats, insults and harassment, both in public and in private, are all crimes punishable by law. A clumsy or malicious legal interpretation of EU legislation on so-called “hate speech crimes” can kill freedom.

    Given the abuse by the wealthy of crimes against personal honour – systematically employed to stop more serious crimes from being dragged out in the open – the Left should have expected to find nothing good coming via this route. But it didn’t get the message.

    Because the real trap, this twisted conception of “hate speech”, was not invented by evil ministers; they have only taken advantage of it in many States like that of Spain, which has a severe democratic deficit in its value system.

    “Hate speech” is a treacherous phrase: fighting against “hate speech” – where “hate” is a subordinate adjective to “speech” – means nothing other than fighting against “speech” in the first place, thereby contributing to the shrinking frame of freedom of speech, instead of fighting for an end to discrimination.

    Defending freedom of speech is not only a pretty and very leftist thing to do, it is also important so that we can distinguish between what a democracy really is and what it is not. Pursuing free speech as a political and legal praxis is a characteristic of dictatorships: and this willing adherence of the Left can only send us in the opposite direction from any solutions.

    Pursuing free speech as a political and legal praxis is a characteristic of dictatorships: and this willing adherence of the Left can only send us in the opposite direction from any solutions. Responding to prosecutions with an eye for an eye logic, responding to hate speech accusations with hate speech accusations, legitimates the narrative which destroys our freedom and reinforces polarization and hatred.
    Legal autarchy

    Spain is slowly becoming (once again) a legal autarchy, with the Minister of Interior widening the definition of hate crime as he likes in order to push the narrative which is destroying our freedoms. Meanwhile, however, the Left calls for limits to freedom of speech without any legal safeguards with its proposal of a law for LTGBI protection.

    I disagree. It is by consolidating freedom of speech that those who are a minority in the ruling narrative will get to express themselves and break free of their constraints on their own. On their own, never in a supervised and victimising way thanks to the loudest voice like that of a Left that always aims to “represent” everyone, even when nobody asked them to.
    Voting 0
  2. from the comments:

    I haven't even read the article yet because the headline hit so close to home for me. This is exactly what led to my conversion. A staunch democrat and obama voter through his first term. Then got sick and tired of being called a racist just for being white, a sexist for being a man, a homophobe for being a Christian, and straw that broke the camels back was being called a transphobic for believing in boys and girls.

    CORRECTION: You're a homophobe for being heterosexual; being Christian makes you "anti-science." You're welcome. :)

    This is why there is no such thing as "white male privilege" no matter how loudly the Left wishes to shriek it. When you are a punching bag for bigotry and prejudice, passed over for education and employment, based on the color of your skin alone, then you aren't enjoying any sort of privilege. When you are automatically presumed to be a violent sexual predator simply because you have a penis you're not planning on rejecting, you are not enjoying any sort of privilege.
    Voting 0
  3. The other aspect is the outrageous shark-jumping on the part of gay marriage advocates. They’ve strained credulity repeatedly by equating their wedding cakes and flowers with the massive and singular violation of human rights that we call segregation. This is a bogus argument. (A statement that I’m sure will engender endless rounds of circular debate.)

    It is also stupid because almost all gay people are down here the pits with the rest of us. Empowering corporations to attack the one voice capable of challenging their hegemony over our government and our way of life, which is the Church, is a little bit like arming the mob that wants to burn down your neighbor’s house because you don’t like your neighbor. How long before that same mob, armed with the weapons you gave them, will turn on you? When they do, your neighbor, who would have come to your aid, will be too weak to fight.

    The political exigency is that gay marriage advocates are endangering their still unsolidified victories in the sphere of gay marriage by seeking to conflate themselves with people who were slaves in this country for several hundred years, and who then were subjected to massive violations of their basic human rights by legal structures that clearly violated both the Constitution and the Gospels.

    Gay people have their just claims about mistreatment as well, but the public mistreatment of homosexuals has pretty much fallen by the wayside. As it should have.

    If they’re smart, they’ll take yes for an answer and let time resolve this debate about wedding cakes. If they’re stupid, they’ll keep on harassing and attacking hapless individuals and ruining their lives. They’ll pit themselves against basic freedoms that belong to everyone, including themselves.

    This is stupid politically, because it raises up an opposition they have not dealt with before. That is those people who actually treasure freedom of religion in this country, irregardless of gay marriage.

    It wasn’t a post attacking homosexual people. It was a post warning of the utter cold-bloodedness of politics. But the ire it wrought was entirely along the “how can you saaaayyyyy that about me?” line. The reason, I think, is that I accidentally hit a nerve. Neediness is at the bottom of a lot of this political sturm und drang. My advice to gay marriage advocates is to get your head out.

    Politics is an uncaring bosom on which to lay your emotional head. Gay people are the same as straight people. Nothing will fill the holes inside their hearts except the love of God in Christ Jesus. Take those sorrows, rejections and self-questions to the cross.

    Politics is a tool. Use it freely as any other American citizen should. But do not confuse it with your worth or your value as a child of God. There is only one affirmation any of us needs. Without it, no other affirmation will suffice. Go to the cross. And trust Him. Just, trust Him.

    Jesus loves gay people as much as He loves any one else. He wants to enfold you in His mercy. He wants to lift your pain off you and set you free from the chains that bind you. Go to Him and trust Him.

    As for politics, We the People need to get together against these overbearing corporatists while we still can. By that I mean all the people, both gay and straight.
    Voting 0
  4. The issue of gay marriage is not one that generally comes up when talking about a pizzeria. Neither is straight marriage, for that matter. Local pizza joints aren’t generally hotbeds of wedding receptions. Yet, Marino found herself wandering into Memories Pizza to get the unsuspecting owners to weigh in on an emotional issue which has never come up in the course of the business’s nearly 10 year existence.

    When owner Crystal O’Connor told Marino, “If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,” she had to know she’d struck gold.

    Marino had her headline, “RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.” O’Connor’s quote was in paragraph three. The chyron on the screen for the report read, “Restaurant denies some services to same-sex couples.”
    Voting 0
  5. Ronald Reagan once said: “The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom and open-mindedness. Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.”

    Many conservatives, especially religious conservatives, can identify with Reagan’s statement. The reason for this is found in the fact that acts of bigotry toward conservative ideals and beliefs are a common practice today among many in the media, the academic elite, and even in the work place. These acts of bigotry toward conservatives are usually carried out by those who claim that conservatives are intolerant, thus they need to be put in check.
    Voting 0
  6. Led by Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and Apple CEO Tim Cook, Silicon Valley is loudly complaining about homophobic laws passed in Indiana and Arkansas in recent days that allow businesses to refuse service to customers based on religious beliefs.

    A who’s who of leaders from companies such as Yelp, Square, Twitter, Lyft, Airbnb, eBay, PayPal and others signed their names to a petition today urging legislatures to forbid discrimination or denial of services to anyone, saying, “Discrimination is bad for business.” Petition leader Max Levchin, a PayPal co-founder and currently CEO of finance startup Affirm, told Re/code: “I am asking all CEOs to evaluate their relationships and investments in states that do not specifically protect LGBT people from discrimination.”

    That’s great and even admirable, except that here on the home front, Silicon Valley has its own very obvious discrimination problems. Gender is a big one. Race is another. The numbers are so incredibly skewed for the majority — the published diversity numbers in technology are something like 70 percent men, 90 percent white and Asian — that the situation is very often unhealthy for people who don’t or can’t fit in.

    While these are not twin causes, there are obvious parallels, and the inconsistencies between them became all the more evident this week.
    Voting 0
  7. There are a number of words in Cook’s announcement that highlight this politicizing of sexuality, even to a manipulative degree. He counts "being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me" and explains why. It has made him “more empathetic” and given him the "confidence … to rise above adversity and bigotry." All this has led him and his company to become a great champion of equality and justice. Each of these are essential and virtuous developments. But what is clearly implied in this gift is that he would likely not have developed these virtues if he were not gay, not as enlightened and virtuous as he is today. He is certainly asking his reader to be thankful along with him. One might be inclined to pity the poor heterosexual who isn’t blessed with such a gift.

    I can love a homosexual, without approving of his or her behavior, in the same way that I can love a jealous person without approving of his or her behavior. But, society is moving at light speed toward the day when I won't be allowed to verbalize that belief without incurring the wrath of society. That doesn't mean I should necessarily change, but that I need to realize that I may suffer persecution for the sake of the Gospel. Having said all that, I do believe that many Christians are a lot more unable to connect with and relate to a homosexual, than a slanderer or a liar. And that's where the rub comes in. Jesus did say that we're to love everyone, not just the loveable. But love doesn't mean approving of sin, nor does it mean that I just keep quiet about the sin. What it does mean is that I live in such a way that those around me see my good works and glorify my Father in Heaven. I've got a lot more to say about this, but the editor didn't ask me submit an article.
    Voting 0
  8. "The ousting of Eich, the DRM problem -- all those imbroglios have tarnished the image of Firefox," said Google+ blogger Alessandrom Ebersol. So, on one side, "agnostic users left Firefox because they were told its new CEO was a conservative bigot. The folks who care about freedom, privacy and open Internet left Firefox because of the DRM module to play Netflix."

    First is "the 'problem' with CEOs -- one accused of sexism and the other bending over to DRM," he said. "The first issue was kind of forced into the community heart, since that person never brought that into the community, really; the second issue is there for all of us to see: FF is not the 100 percent FLOSS friend and flag-carrier it used to be. There is still time to review this decision, Mozilla!"

    In fact, "there is a huge danger in trusting Google -- or any other single large company, particularly one with interests in U.S. defense contracts -- with the responsibility to determine whether a certificate revocation is important enough to tell you about," he added. "With Chrome, you give up a lot of control over your own security."

    A COMMENT: "conservative bigotry". I don't think so! The only bigotry I saw was from the witch hunt created by the as-called "liberal progressives" (cultural Marxists) who showed complete and utter contempt for the freedom of expression of what is the majority view in California and of anyone who cares about family values. Such "liberal" bigotry was in complete contradiction to the values of freedom that Mozilla tell us they stand for defending, and if you read much of the feedback from people abandoning Firefox it's overwhelmingly from people disgusted at the treatment of Eich.
    Tags: , , , , , by M. Fioretti (2014-07-17)
    Voting 0
  9. A new global polarisation is occurring around sexuality, one that pits notions of individual rights against the most difficult assumptions of human rights language, namely the protection of religious and cultural difference.

    Responses to proclamations by individuals such as Iveri need to be seen within the framework of this much wider debate and how calls for a boycott will be interpreted in many parts of the world where there is very strong and passionate opposition to recognition of sexual and gender diversity.

    One unintended consequence of Iveri’s contract now being cancelled is that it will reinforce the perception that “the West” is using homosexuality to wage a cultural war on those whose understandings of sexuality are very different; it might well increase homophobia in Georgia and make Iveri into a martyr for social conservatives.
    Voting 0
  10. Breaking gender boundaries like Conchita does, hits the collective social nerve of the Western world in a way that who you sleep with does not. See also – the child whose parents decided to raise it without a gender and the immense media kerfuffle it created. How about up to 1% of the world – 70 million people – continuing to not define as a particular gender or deciding to change their gender?

    4. It could – finally – force through gender equality in a way that feminism and gay rights by themselves haven’t yet managed
    If we see gender as a couple of biological tweaks plus a few shots of hormones, inequality in areas like pay looks increasingly unjustified.
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2014-05-15)
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 2 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: homophobia

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle