Civilised societies

As we all know, gays are evil. In fact if we don’t get rid of them, God (the Christian one) will take it out on us. Or maybe the Muslim one will. Or the Wiccan one. Or the Sikh one. Or …


In a week where I offered congratulations to a gay friend who had a quiet wedding to his partner of some years, I read elsewhere about ISIS throwing a suspected gay man off a roof to his death, complete with typical gladiatorial/guillotine/hanging excited crowd watching this total barbarism.

And in the land of the brave and the free—so long as you’re not gay that is—a lawyer in California has proposed killing all gays. Nice huh? And although his proposal starts off with gays and sodomy/buggery, he quickly switches to anything that includes same sex relations, so no get-out for lesbians either. No mention of transsexuals but I’m sure he’d include those too. Shoot them all. Death by firing squad. Or ‘God’ will take it out on us. A little self-interest there methinks?

And if you are a heterosexual who supports sodomistic propaganda – no writing pro-LGBTQ blog posts in California – you are barred from public office, public employment and public benefits.


Mr McLaughlin paid $200 to submit this sick, discriminatory, inhumane proposal. He needs more than 300,000 signatures to support it. The worrying aspect is that he may well get even one signature.

If the USA is meant to be such an example to the rest of the world (and I’ll hold my breath on that one), why is such a proposal even allowable?

Similarly, in a supposedly secular multi-cultural country, why the reference to a Christian God in a legal proposal?

Or maybe it’s just a crass publicity stunt? In which case I’ve bought into it.

ISIS takes arbitrary action. An American goes through the system. The bigotry and hatred are the same. Where is the humanity, decency or respect for one person to another in any of this?

About roughseasinthemed

I write about my life as an English person living in Spain and Gibraltar, on Roughseas, subjects range from politics and current developments in Gib to book reviews, cooking and getting on with life. My views and thoughts on a variety of topics - depending on my mood of the day - can be found over on Clouds. A few pix are over on Everypic - although it is not a photoblog. And of course my dog had his own blog, but most of you knew that anyway. Pippadogblog etc
This entry was posted in Atheism, christianity, life, Religion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Civilised societies

  1. Everyone can have their say. It’s allowed if you’re brave enough for the consequences(ridicule/hate mail).
    At least bloggers/cartoonists/writers generally aren’t sentenced to death and anyone with half a brain (or less) can have a newspaper, radio show, or website to say what they want. Doesn’t mean people listen. (Although there are companies that you can pay a bunch of money to and get lots of signatures on petitions…as long as you realize most of them aren’t legit and will be struck off once petition is presented. This happens all the time. Recently in Houston with a recall attempt for a more than equal rights ordinance.)
    Most people just yawn. But quirky weird news is such fun.


    • But it seems that some can have more say than others. Some pigs are more equal than other animals. Four legs good. Two legs bad? Possibly …

      Of course they are sentenced to death, look at the Dhaka butchering of the atheist blogger.


      • It’s worse now. Just like in Animal farm. Hate crime murder is worse than murder? Really dead is dead. Grow up people. We have laws. Follow them and prosecute. Not happening right now…everyone is so special – their moms, schools, DOJ says so…
        Of course that petition was in CA where people are the most colorful and dramatic. That petition isn’t official legal doc yet so it can say whatever. The state process would send it to legal scrutiny (check for neutral, inoffensive to any group, discriminatory language as determined by the Constitution, then State Constitution (and laws), and Federal laws. The concept would have to be allowable under the Constitutions, the State Constitution/laws and the Federal laws. Then the signatures would have to be audited, and certified as true (yes, the call people to see if they signed it and agree with it, and check addresses on the petition. The for profit companies just go for numbers for pay and there’s a great deal of fraud if you are stupid enough to pay. And many people change their minds once they actually hear what they signed – herd instinct and peer pressure along with misleading representation of petitions adds in a lot of people who don’t read what they sign. Then if the petition passes all that, it goes to state committee who decides to act on it or not. And that’s just the start of the process.
        There’s always wackos/extremists/fanatics on both ends. You just hope there’s enough in the middle who just want to live and let live and be left along – and pay attention – to keep thing steady. Many are disgusted with all the political antics right now…and walking away. Not a good thing. We’ll see how it goes. Money is what means power right now. ALL us little people are fodder


        • Did you see the homeless person killed by the police? That’s an interesting one. More riots? Did he/didn’t he go for a police officer’s gun?

          Of course everyone is special. Total sidetrack, that’s why all book reviews must be positive. No criticism allowed to hurt feefees. Ok back on track now.

          Thanks for the explanation of the process. Way to make jobs for happy people.

          Live and let live? Exactly what partner said when I mentioned it. Thing of the past. Perhaps James Bond was right: Live and Let Die.

          Money has always meant power, but worse now. Very much worse. We are pawns in the games of the bankers and global businesses. Even politicians are mere rooks.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Bond was always right.
            Still out here on the homeless guy case until all the videos and info comes out. (bad joke or deadly one: how many cops does it take to subdue a one guy?) He apparently had quite a record including assault, but is that relevant? Why were the cops there in the first place? What was that other guy doing? What happened before? Was he on drugs (you know how meth heads/addicts are pretty uncontrollable and super strong in ERs) Lots of why’s. Not much known yet – lots of media assumptions. Real conclusions still in works….but by the time they arrive, people will have already made up their minds and gone on to the next event.
            And your last paragraph is solid. Sadly many of our politicians are completely fooled and still think they are the special ones when actually your analysis is the truth.


          • Bond was pragmatic. Especially if you read the books.

            Yeah, did sound like a bad joke. But, five officers to one homeless dero? Something wrong there.

            I wish it wasn’t. In the UK we have always known that civil servants ran the government, ie Yes Minister. Sadly no longer.


          • Always prefer the books to movies – films can’t portray so much.
            Something is definitely wrong. Right now it’s not wise for anyone to cross police who all seem hair trigger and are either chip on shoulder or nervous about being hauled into court by lawsuits/feds.
            With other jobs paying much more, many on the local forces wouldn’t be my first choice for candidates. Low requirements: a few community college courses and police training. No guarantee of good judgment, maturity, or rapid processing of information. Guess you get what you pay for?
            Far too many hot heads/ego driven personalities who really shouldn’t be given roles of authority. (In my opinion ANY of them involved in domestic violence or off duty assaults should be instantly fired – one case recently a law officer pulled a gun in a movie theater because some kids behind them kept talking/texting/kicking his girlfriend’s chair….seriously? In what universe is this appropriate?) Best to just keep far far away no matter what ethnic group/race you or the cops are.
            Things are generally a big muddle everywhere.
            Dedicated civil servants used to be honest and work hard to keep things moving smoothly no matter who was in office or head of agency. All politics now.

            Liked by 1 person

          • That is one spooky cinema story. Really frightening. Here in Gib we have bobbies on the beat. Nice people who stop to chat but do respond to any immediate crime. Not normally armed, although some are.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Oh, the proposal should be allowed. That way we know where they are so we can avoid them and their shrapnel. It’s sickening to say the least.


    • OK, compromise. Allow it to be publicly propsed, but then with a legal explanation of why it can’t/won’t/shouldn’t go forward?

      And all those who sign will be debarred from public office, public employment, public benefits … of course, one would only say that afterwards 🙂


      • Legal explanation, check!
        I personally would be thrilled if anyone that supported it would be barred from those things, but I think that’s a bad road to head down.

        Bigots still deserve their crummy life, so barring them from benefits seems problematic. But more than that, if signing a proposal could cause all of that, what happens when the bigots are in charge? They already are in a lot of places.


  3. makagutu says:

    I think all these are really sick. They think if they let gays live their god will be offended. Doesn’t the god get offended at the killings they purport to carry out in its name


    • Quite. Not just their god will get offended, they will suffer for allowing it. How off the wall is that?

      Nah, whatever they do in their god’s name is cool. Don’t you know?


      • makagutu says:

        I forgot that part. What shocks me is apologists keep writing that atheists are angry, sad people. What does it tell of such human beings?


        • Do you know any angry sad atheists? 😀 I find my atheist pals really good company, but each to their own. Fundies will also find their religious pals such happy souls …

          Religious types strike me as striving for something that they don’t quite understand. They don’t know what they want, so they need their blessed rule book of whatever religion.


          • makagutu says:

            All the atheists I know personally or online are not angry all the time. Sometimes they get angry as I do at too much stupid but generally they live and let live


          • I wouldn’t call them angry. They lack vitriol and diatribe. Annoyed, yes. But anger doesn’t come across. Nor does sadness. Nor does hatred. Snarky does though …


  4. Arkenaten says:

    Is this for real?
    Interesting. Our constitution is specific where it comes to actions liable to incite hate and I am pretty sure this would get nailed straight off the bat, and the arsehole that proposed it charged.
    A classic Dickhead.

    But it should be given a public airing to demonstrate how damning something of this nature, based on religious doctrine truly is.


    • Looked real enough when I checked it out on other media. Does huff post count? Not that I read it, I add quickly. UK has/had similar laws, so I can’t imagine any country passing a law lke that. OK maybe America.

      I never said that. But you are always allowed to. Speaking of which, your pal SD is up for a platinum medal …

      So long as it isn’t taken seriously and gets treated with ridicule and is not allowed to become law. Because then the US becomes ISIS. Or maybe it’s partway there? I don’t know.


  5. EllaDee says:

    I don’t believe [any] God cares if someone is gay or not… but the self-appointed representatives may… Along the same lines you might appreciate this “NSW state election 2015: Sodomy decriminalisation blamed for budget woes”
    Beyond ridiculous all of it.
    Mardi Gras in Sydney this weekend… I’ll enjoy knowing that certain people will be stewing in their own bigotry while others celebrate, and the rest of us get on with our lives.


    • Just wow! Of course I had to check out the Sydney option when I looked at that link.

      We were just up the road from Paddington St, and our hostel wardens were gay. So what? They were nice people. Surely that should be a priority? They didn’t discriminate against me, why would I view their sexuality as an issue? Really gets up my nose.

      There’s clearly a long way to go …


  6. davidprosser says:

    I want tom use the term animals for Isis and the pack of baying hounds out for blood that follow them around.. I want to use that term but I can’t because animals don’t behave like that. They may kill but don’t derive pleasure from it.
    I know the Arab mind and culture are not like ours, their priorities are different. We may hate what they do but can’t avoid making allowances for the differences. Neither side is cultured in the others eyes. But America takes the biscuit with yet another pop at gays and this one is offensive in the extreme. I begin to wonder just what their definition of a Christian is, it’s certainly not the one I’m aware of even if I don’t share the beliefs. And do the men there actually believe women are not their equals. The U.S. is one big sick puppy in need of a vet ( only they don’t treat their vets well either).
    Cwtch xxx


    • I find it difficult to reconcile the repressive regimes of fundamentalist Islam today with the cultured Islamic empires of the past that were prosperous, wealthy, forward thinking and created such beauty. Even today, we see remains of their terracing in much of the landscape around us, let alone the incredible architecture of minarets and the mezquita in cordoba.

      But fundamentalist Christianity is just as repressive, they might not behead people on videos, but some have killed in the name of their god, eg Army of God. And while this proposal is unlikely to become law (one hopes not anyway) it’s certainly evidence of some horrific bigoted and perverted thinking. Why is it so difficult to let people get on with their own lives and treat everyone equally and with respect?

      And no, they don’t believe women are equal. I’ve read enough of their drivel to have worked that out, because, you know, their god didn’t make them equal.


  7. I’ve always found it something of a conundrum how crowds can move either to greatness or to this level of depravity. The best things we have made–fine buildings, bridges, the electrical grid, Linux and so on are undoubtedly the work of teams working toward a common goal. So, too, are the worse things: the Holocaust, soccer thug mob violence and, yes, ISIS. I sort it out thinking that ideals can be magnets. Some attract the best and some the worst. Right now all of the disenfranchised, the senselessly violent and the lost are attracted to that melee of chaos and evil that is ISIS. When, eventually, it burns itself out–they all do–another will appear, and another and then another…


  8. disperser says:

    Let me think . . . are you in favor of blasphemy laws? I ask because one of the things about living here is that someone can get up and say something completely asinine . . . and people will make fun of them.

    But the point is they can say it.

    The religious often claim they are offended by what you and I, or at least I, say and that there should be a punishment for offending them. The day there are blasphemy laws is the day I leave this country.

    Well, the above post sounds like the inverse . . . a reasonable person can be offended by what that idiot proposed, but they cannot ask to be shielded from stupidity. Also, one hopes the real repercussions of the above (i.e. ridicule, loss of work, etc.) will ensure that few others will think of saying the same.

    Then again, should the idiot find support, I want to know that as well (again, the whole leaving the country bit). If these things are not allowed to be openly said, how would we know what’s going on?


    • I grew up with blasphemy law. Interesting really. When I trained as a journalust it was still current. It was a Christian blasphemy law, I’d have to look up the detail and my book is not within arm’s reach. It was scrapped years ago (2008) presumably to reflect the very changing nature of the UK population and there is some new law that incorporates causing offence to everyone under the sun. It’s more in line with the race act, ie inciting or causing racial or religious hatred rather than blasphemy towards christianity.

      I don’t know enough about the UK any more whether this would be allowed as a Private Member’s Bill (where MPs get to submit a proposal for something of their own interest rather than a party issue). I doubt it very much.

      Apart from the sheer bigotry and hated something like this engenders, it annoys me that it is a waste of public money to process it. Should discriminatory proposals that propose execution based on sexual preference be allowed to take up the time of civil servants?


I appreciate any comments you leave, so long as they are relatively polite. And thanks for reading.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s