This Was Inevitable
I ran into some technical obstacles this week blogging. I will be testing new approaches today, I think the only people affected will be RSS subscribers.
Some things happened this week that would be of concern to us here. Congress and the President are making some progress on important issues. Some Democrats lost elections. And Maine voted against marriage equality. It was a fifty-fifty tie before the election, and in the end their side won.
When I came across this article the other day I found myself feeling surprisingly unsympathetic.
Listen, you can't blame the other side for showing scary ads. You can't blame a politician for failing to take a clear stand on a controversial issue -- they almost never do. These "national gay rights leaders" can blame anybody they want, but at the end of the day it all comes back to them. Once again they underestimated the ferocity of the battle.
It's a tough fight. Gays and lesbians make up a tiny percentage of the population and a lot of straight people are uneasy about homosexuality, they don't understand it, it just seems strange and unimaginable to them. It is not hard to exploit that unease with some emotionally powerful ads. Anti-gay bigotry is not a reasoned thing, that's why they sound so dumb, they don't have any reasons for their loathing of gay people, it just creeps them out. You're not going to change their minds by giving them reasons.
We came close to this a couple of years ago when we nearly had a referendum on the gender-identity nondiscrimination law in Montgomery County. I displeased a bunch of people by writing here about how lame our side was, we had a group that was getting some funding but was disorganized and unable to come up with a coherent and powerful way of representing the need for protection of the rights of transgender people. All the other side had to do was show one picture of an ugly cross-dresser and the battle was lost. It's hard to understand that, but that's how it works. Same in Maine, one picture of a guy in a tu-tu (I attended a CRC meeting once that opened with a series of videos of outrageous guys, dressed, let's say, outside the norm) outweighs a thousand pages of reasoned discussion of the need for LBGT citizens to have the same rights as everybody else.
Yes, Obama flaked. Big surprise. Yes, the other side had "scare-mongering ads" -- what'd you expect? They wanted to win and that was the way to do it. And what did our side have? Reasons.
Our side has common sense and kindness to motivate us and prop us up, our strength is in the fact that we are actually right -- LGBT people are just people and should be able to get a job, catch a cab, marry the person they love just like the rest of us can. The other side has fear of the unknown. Their strength is that most people are straight and have no empathy with somebody who is attracted to members of their own sex; the whole idea seems weird and alien and frightening to many straight people. Those are not complementary positions, they are positions in entirely different worlds. But they meet when a citizen walks into a voting booth and looks at a ballot and decides what button to push. So far reason has not figured out how to conquer fear.
Some things happened this week that would be of concern to us here. Congress and the President are making some progress on important issues. Some Democrats lost elections. And Maine voted against marriage equality. It was a fifty-fifty tie before the election, and in the end their side won.
When I came across this article the other day I found myself feeling surprisingly unsympathetic.
SAN FRANCISCO – Stunned and angry, national gay rights leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads — and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement — for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the gay-marriage debate.
Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed gay couples to wed, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for same-sex marriage.
"Every time the citizens have voted on marriage, they have always sided with natural marriage," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen."
Gay activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's marriage law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Marry. "The anti-gay forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."
The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment. Gay leaders blame TV ads, Obama for loss in Maine
Listen, you can't blame the other side for showing scary ads. You can't blame a politician for failing to take a clear stand on a controversial issue -- they almost never do. These "national gay rights leaders" can blame anybody they want, but at the end of the day it all comes back to them. Once again they underestimated the ferocity of the battle.
It's a tough fight. Gays and lesbians make up a tiny percentage of the population and a lot of straight people are uneasy about homosexuality, they don't understand it, it just seems strange and unimaginable to them. It is not hard to exploit that unease with some emotionally powerful ads. Anti-gay bigotry is not a reasoned thing, that's why they sound so dumb, they don't have any reasons for their loathing of gay people, it just creeps them out. You're not going to change their minds by giving them reasons.
We came close to this a couple of years ago when we nearly had a referendum on the gender-identity nondiscrimination law in Montgomery County. I displeased a bunch of people by writing here about how lame our side was, we had a group that was getting some funding but was disorganized and unable to come up with a coherent and powerful way of representing the need for protection of the rights of transgender people. All the other side had to do was show one picture of an ugly cross-dresser and the battle was lost. It's hard to understand that, but that's how it works. Same in Maine, one picture of a guy in a tu-tu (I attended a CRC meeting once that opened with a series of videos of outrageous guys, dressed, let's say, outside the norm) outweighs a thousand pages of reasoned discussion of the need for LBGT citizens to have the same rights as everybody else.
Yes, Obama flaked. Big surprise. Yes, the other side had "scare-mongering ads" -- what'd you expect? They wanted to win and that was the way to do it. And what did our side have? Reasons.
Our side has common sense and kindness to motivate us and prop us up, our strength is in the fact that we are actually right -- LGBT people are just people and should be able to get a job, catch a cab, marry the person they love just like the rest of us can. The other side has fear of the unknown. Their strength is that most people are straight and have no empathy with somebody who is attracted to members of their own sex; the whole idea seems weird and alien and frightening to many straight people. Those are not complementary positions, they are positions in entirely different worlds. But they meet when a citizen walks into a voting booth and looks at a ballot and decides what button to push. So far reason has not figured out how to conquer fear.
posted by JimK at 11:09 AM
34 Comments:
Yes, but reason is slowly but effectively making that change IMHO, Jim.
The earliest state votes on the definition of marriage went against marriage equality by huge margins, 80%-20%, or 70%-30%. But the last two state votes in California and Maine lost by 5 and 6 percentage points, respectively.
Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he pointed out: The arc of moral justice is long, but it bends toward justice.
It won't be much longer now.
It won't be much longer before the young people who are being fed all of this nonsense wake up and realize they've been duped.
I was fed a steady diet of the pro abortion crap while growing up, and realized that the batty old feminists who fed it to me were just that -- batty.
Oh...how enlightened of you, "Anonymous"
How many children who have ended up unwanted by their parents have you adopted? How often have you participated in a rally opposing the death penalty? Do you support effective comprehensive sex education, including the correct use of condomns?
Andrea-not anon
I liked Tom Toles cartoon
A man saying "I have no job, no insurance but at least I stopped that couple down the street from marrying"
Hey, Anon
Nice words- but we all know you are the batty one. No one is forcing you or your family to have abortions- so don't have one.
I shudder to think what the outcome would have been if the voters had voted on whether to desegregate schools or allow inter-racial marriage.
The arc is beginning to bend toward justice for my LBBTQ friends and please let me say I am a Christian who believes in justice and equal rights for every human being.
When I hear the fundies start off their sentence with "As a Christian, I . . . ." my blood begins to boil. The hatred they teach is not Christianity at all.
Through the holy spirit God continues to teach us. Folks like Mr. Anonymous probably don't have enough brain power to learn, though.
Yes, reason is slowly but effectively turning the public against gay marriage. In California, the rejection was by 5%. This year, Maine has it up to 6%
Democrats will find they will eventually have to choose between minority voters and gay voters. Both blacks and Hispanics favor traditional values disproportionately to WASPs so as minority participation in the political process increases, the gay agenda loses.
Sorry, Charlie.
"Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he pointed out: The arc of moral justice is long, but it bends toward justice."
another fella who EARNED his Nobel Peace Prize
he's right: the arc is bending away from special privileges and protections for gays
"How many children who have ended up unwanted by their parents have you adopted?"
quite a dichotomy, you've concocted
adopt 'em or favor their execution
"How often have you participated in a rally opposing the death penalty?"
criminals convicted of serious felonies are subject to the death penalty
unborn children aren't criminals
those who kill them are
"Do you support effective comprehensive sex education, including the correct use of condomns?"
why?
how about this:
A man saying "I have no job, no insurance but at least I know if someone bops a gay, they'll get a couple more years behind bars than if they bopped me"
let's face it: Obama is lost on the unemployment issue
No one is forcing you or your family to murder a child- so don't murder one.
Jim writes,
Our side has common sense and kindness to motivate us and prop us up, our strength is in the fact that we are actually right -- LGBT people are just people and should be able to get a job, catch a cab, marry the person they love just like the rest of us can.
And GLBTQI (did I leave anyone out?) are able to get a job (more and more of which are now providing same-sex partner benefits), catch a cab and live with the person they love...they just cannot force the State to endorse it with the label of marriage. For example, I know that on the street I live on here in Fort Collins there are two and perhaps three gay/lesbian couples. Like myself, they have jobs, lives, friends and family. Most everyone tries to treat each other with respect, and in case that is too difficult to understand we have a local NIOTA local chapter to respond to incidents of hate crimes.
The mistake Jim makes is in taking common sense plus kindness and equaling that to "the fact that we are actually right". This is a common conceit of both sides, liberal and conservative. What is needed is something more...an understanding of the reasons and purposes of marriage, much of which has been obscured by all the puppy love talk in describing marriage. Marriage has a purpose and that purpose defines limits that we as a society tamper with at our own peril. Western Europe has already gone down this road (and here I am not just thinking of same-sex "marriage", but of a host of other issues related to marriage, or to be more precise the lack thereof) and they are starting to reap the results. For those that want to better understand this issue there is plenty of information; for those desiring to argue what is plain to the human intellect no amount of information will matter.
The other side has fear of the unknown.
Yawn...fear mongering is a staple on both sides, as witnessed here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE
Their strength is that most people are straight and have no empathy with somebody who is attracted to members of their own sex;
That is an argument that is becoming less and less effective since more and more people have become or are becoming personally acquainted with people they know and respect that are homosexual. Yes, there are those that will always think it wierd, strange and even creepy, however this group has been and continues to be shrinking as we all become more accepting of our differences.
the whole idea seems weird and alien and frightening to many straight people. Those are not complementary positions, they are positions in entirely different worlds. But they meet when a citizen walks into a voting booth and looks at a ballot and decides what button to push. So far reason has not figured out how to conquer fear.
Especially after the vote on Prop 8 last year in California, many people have had their eyes opened on what looks to be the end game of those pushing for same-sex "marriage"...and it is most decidedly not about marriage "equality". It is about the State endorsement and support of sexual deviations that further weaken the Common Good purposes of marriage for an overwhelming majority of Americans. The Heritage Foundation has done good work documenting what those that fancy themselves "liberal" have done in the name of tolerance and diversity.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/upload/bg_2328-3.pdf
We know that people have lots of sexual deviations. However, most people, even the ones who indulge in them, do NOT want those deviations normalized and they don't want their children indoctrinated into the deviation.
The gay population is different. They want their deviations normalized, they want children indoctrinated-- and most people just don't like that.
Orin yawned:
“fear mongering is a staple on both sides, as witnessed here,”
And linked to a video of Mormon missionaries going into the home of a lesbian couple to look for their marriage license. After finding it, they proceed to tear it up.
I’ve known some Mormon missionaries personally, and I don’t think they’d do that any time soon. However, it is no secret that both Mormons and Catholics were the major force behind Prop 8, and after it passed, they proceeded to try and nullify the existing 18,000 gay marriages. (http://abovethelaw.com/2009/05/california_prop_8_ruling.php )
Fortunately, the CA Supreme Court ruled to keep those marriages in tact. If they hadn’t, the effect would have been the same as if someone had come into their home and destroyed their license, as well as the copy at the county clerk’s office. It was only intervention by the court that kept the end result of this scenario from becoming a reality. In this particular case, I wouldn’t call it “fear mongering” so much as I would “reality mongering.”
Orin argued:
“Western Europe has already gone down this road (and here I am not just thinking of same-sex "marriage", but of a host of other issues related to marriage, or to be more precise the lack thereof) and they are starting to reap the results. For those that want to better understand this issue there is plenty of information; for those desiring to argue what is plain to the human intellect no amount of information will matter.”
Ok Orin, so I went looking… found a number of articles like this from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2328566/posts
“As we can see from what has happened in Old Europe, state creation of same-sex marriage has seriously undermined marriage as a social institution. Data from the World Values Survey and the International Social Survey Programme show that countries with same-sex marriage demonstrate the lowest levels of support for traditional marriage. Citizens in these countries are significantly less likely than their counterparts in the U.S. and Australia to agree that adults who desire children should wed; they are significantly more likely to approve of cohabitation without marital intentions and to consider divorce to be the best solution to marital problems.”
What they fail to relate is the simple fact that marriage rates have gone down, divorce rates have gone up, as well as those of unwed parents all over the western world for decades. It is a pattern that proceeded gay marriages anywhere and looks like it will continue for years to come unless something changes. The coincidence that gay marriage has occurred in some of those countries is merely that, a coincidence. It is not a cause, and I defy you to come up with a legitimate scientific study that shows otherwise. Correlation is NOT causation.
Also from Free Republic:
“According to NRO contributor Stanley Kurtz, marriage, and especially married parenthood, are disappearing in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, countries that adopted same-sex marriage between 1989 and 1994. Kurtz says this “culture-shifting event” has pushed rates of unwed childbearing over the top in Scandinavia.”
Hmmm… “culture-shifting event” Allowing gays, a very small percentage of the population to marry, who then can’t even have children themselves, pushed rates of “unwed childbearing over the top”??? Puhhhlleeaze.
Let’s look at other “culture-shifting events” that were going on back then, like the fall of the Berlin wall, the entirety of eastern Europe finally coming out from behind the Iron Curtain, consolidation of the European Union, major migrations of poor populations from previous Soviet Bloc countries to places where they could find work, usually at the bottom end of the economic scale. There was major upheaval in the German economy in particular, as well as other countries to a lesser extent as they tried to cope with the consequences. To presume that none of these issues played a role in people’s socio-economic lives and marriages is naïve.
A total of less then 5% of the population falls into one of the LGBTQ categories. That means 95% of the population is straight. If straight couples aren’t getting wed before having children, or they are marrying less, it is there own fault. Not that of someone else. I suspect the drop in church attendance over the past few decades is due to the fact that for whatever reason, these churches are not meeting the spiritual needs of their congregants. That is not the fault of the gays either.
If you want more good heterosexual marriages with happily wed parents, then I encourage to you work for that goal. In fact I may even help you. But blaming gays for the problems in heterosexual marriages is simply a scapegoat. It does nothing to address the underlying problems in heterosexual marriages or society at large. Continuing to blame gays for that only means you ignore the real causes for even longer and do nothing to fix them. Don’t blame the gays for that either. They’re too busy fighting for the right to marry to help heterosexuals with their marriages.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"blaming gays for the problems in heterosexual marriages is simply a scapegoat"
no one does, Cyn
that's a straw the lunatics have created to argue with
when they said they are fighting to preserve marriage, they mean the prospective damage that would occur if it is redefined
Cynthia writes,
If you want more good heterosexual marriages with happily wed parents, then I encourage to you work for that goal. In fact I may even help you.
And I would welcome the help! Really now, gays and lesbians come from somewhere, they simply do not drop out of the sky as if from some alien spaceship. And where is it they come from? They come from families. When families are stronger, gays and lesbians will also benefit (especially as those families become more open, welcoming and loving, embracing their gays and lesbian children).
But blaming gays for the problems in heterosexual marriages is simply a scapegoat.
I agree 101% Nearly ALL of the dysfunctions, problems and issues with marriage are the result of heterosexual men and women not taking marriage seriously, most especially when they have children.
It does nothing to address the underlying problems in heterosexual marriages or society at large. Continuing to blame gays for that only means you ignore the real causes for even longer and do nothing to fix them.
So, what do you think are the real causes of the deterioration in the state of marriage? (Really, I would like to know) If you ask me I will say it society placing the happiness of adults ahead of the happiness, welfare and safety of children.
Don’t blame the gays for that either. They’re too busy fighting for the right to marry to help heterosexuals with their marriages.
The irony of such an assertion is that there will not be much left to help heterosexuals with if same-sex "marriage" becomes a reality. It will be a cruel joke for gays and lesbians who take the idea of marriage more seriously than do heterosexuals I am sorry to say.
Orin asked:
“So, what do you think are the real causes of the deterioration in the state of marriage? (Really, I would like to know) If you ask me I will say it society placing the happiness of adults ahead of the happiness, welfare and safety of children.”
I am no expert on marriage or children Orin, having never been married or had a child myself. But let me throw some ideas out there. Some of them may sound odd at first, but think about them for a while.
First consider this:
If you want to go fishing (legally) in most places you have to have a license.
If you want to do someone’s nails and get paid for it in most states, you have to have a license.
If you want to do someone’s hair and get paid for it, you have to have a license. It is not uncommon for hair care providers to have their license up on the mirror where you can see it while you are getting your hair done.
If you want to get a gun in most places, you need to get a license, and usually a background check.
If you want to drive a car, you typically have to take a class, pass a test, and get a license.
If you want a job fixing people’s toilets or light switches, states typically require that you have a license.
What do you need if you want to have a kid?
Do you need to show that you have the emotional maturity to deal with a screaming baby without throttling them to death? Do you need to show that you have the financial wherewithal to support a child? Do you need to prove you have sufficient parenting skills to keep your child off of Jerry Springer? Do you have to attend any child parenting classes? Do you have to prove that you won’t repeat any abusive treatment your parents might have heaped on you will not be repeated on your child? Do you have to know how and what to feed a baby? Do you even need to be married?
The answers are no, no, no, no, no, no, and no, respectively.
All you need are some hot thigh sweats and a heterosexual couple at the wrong time of the month, and *poof*, child is on the way – whether you wanted her or not.
This may sound like a crazy idea, but think about this one for a while. Suppose that every high school student in the country had to take care of an infant for at least 6 full months before they could graduate. That means being with them most of the day and night – feeding them, changing them, rocking them to sleep, and comforting them when they are crying. This would all have to be done with close and careful supervision of course. They should also be required to take (and pass!) parenting and baby care classes before they get anywhere near a child. Once they get into the swing of taking care of a baby day in and day out, they should start taking marriage classes. These would focus on problem resolution, finances, household budgeting, setting aside money for your child’s college, sharing household responsibilities, and any other marriage related topic.
Once teenage boys (in particular, but young women as well) are faced with the daily consequences of raising an infant, I think the abstinence rate will see a healthy increase. Teenagers will experience first-hand the struggles and joys of childrearing and I believe, begin to consider the matter far more seriously. When they do decide to have a child or get married, I think it will come from a far more informed, carefully considered, and seriously taken position.
Orin responded:
“The irony of such an assertion is that there will not be much left to help heterosexuals with if same-sex "marriage" becomes a reality. It will be a cruel joke for gays and lesbians who take the idea of marriage more seriously than do heterosexuals I am sorry to say.”
There are already plenty of gay and lesbian couples who already take commitment and marriage more seriously than straight couples. The first couple in line to get married in San Francisco were two women in their seventies who had been together for 50 years. The next time Britney Spears gets married (that would be #3 for her), is there anyone going to be protesting the damage she has done to heterosexual marriage? Does anyone really expect any marriage by Paris Hilton to be “till death do us part?” What do you think children conclude about marriage and relationships when they see heterosexuals like this?
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Cynthia said: "This may sound like a crazy idea, but think about this one for a while. Suppose that every high school student in the country had to take care of an infant for at least 6 full months before they could graduate."
Cynthia -- In theory, this really sounds good, but in reality, it has a huge, fatal flaw. When I was in junior high, the teacher made us partner up and take care of an egg for several days. I hated taking care of that egg and always (almost unconsciously) associated having children with having that egg.
Then came the day, years and years later, when I had my first child. BOOM. Everything changed. From that day forward, I've wanted nothing more or nothing less in life than to spend time with my child. The overwhelming love that the majority of people feel for their own children is not accounted for in the scenario you laid out.
Caring for other people's children is not a substitute. I can spend endless hours with my own children, but when I watch someone else's children, I am happy to hand them back to their own parents.
It's inexplicable, and if you teach young people that caring for a child is all work and drudgery, without accounting for the love factor, then you do those young people a great disservice. Most parents I know crinkle their noses if they have to change another baby's diaper, but change their own child's diaper without giving it a second thought.
Because of that stupid egg experiment at school, which led me to think (at an impressionable age) that having a child is joyless, I lost many years of joy. I don't regret one minute of having a child, but I do regret that I didn't do it sooner. Big thanks to the Montgomery County school system for that one.
And Cynthia -- The majority of children do best with their own parents. One study in Canada showed that a child is 1000 times more likely to be murdered if the child is not living with both parents. While the child murder rate is, obviously, low, extrapolate that figure down to various abuses and think about it.
It should be a rare circumstance for someone to have to adopt. Something is wrong with our society if large numbers of children are up for adoption.
Heterosexual parents or people who mess up or who need help have nothing to do with gay people. Nothing. The comparison is silly.
Also, you make it seem as though gay people do nothing wrong. Did you hear about those two lesbians last year who viciously beat a little boy? One of the lesbians was the mother of the boy. They hung him by his hands and burned him with cigarette butts and did other horrific things. Google for the mother -- Starkeisha Brown. It happened in the LA area.
And what about that woman who sexually abused her daughter's friend before killing her and stuffing her in a suitcase last year? I think her name was Melissa Huckaby.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals commit crimes against children, Cynthia.
and heterosexuals commit far more crimes against children than could ever be attributed to gay couples!
This is a national disgrace that heterosexuals will never face up to because it undermines their "sanctity of marriage" mirage.
In thirty years of teaching,I could not even begin to add up the number of children who came from abusive families...families who treated them as "appendages" of their own egos...children who were permanently scarred from divorce situations, sometimes more than once over! Enough about your hypocracy and snarky judgementalism.
Socrates
public schooling is one of the worst abuses of children ever
Orin
Here in Virginia where I live, LGBT people can be denied jobs, housing, loans, and even cab rides simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Marriage and domestic partnerships are simply part of a larger picture.
rrjr
Of course there is more abuse by heterosexuals-- they're the ones who have children!
And, statistically, most people are heterosexuals!
"public schooling is one of the worst abuses of children ever" Is that why you, "Anonymous"...the one who sends your children to church-related schools...fight so fervently and assiduously against public schools here in Montgomery County?
Keep your children away from the Brothers and Priests, though. Who knows what could happen?
Anon reported:
“The majority of children do best with their own parents. One study in Canada showed that a child is 1000 times more likely to be murdered if the child is not living with both parents. While the child murder rate is, obviously, low, extrapolate that figure down to various abuses and think about it.”
I never advocated that children should be taken from their homes in order to accomplish the task of teaching teenagers parenting skills. For starters, there are over half a million children in foster care. ( http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm ) Secondly, the teenager should be staying in the home of the child, (not their own) and take on a large chunk of the responsibility for daily care of the child. Infants may not be the best choice for some, and older children may be more appropriate. No parent is going to let a teenager take care of their child without serious and nearly constant supervision.
This is not an “easy” solution. But solving the problem of poor parenting and a 50% divorce rate doesn’t have an “easy” solution. If you know of one, please elaborate.
“Homosexuals and heterosexuals commit crimes against children, Cynthia.”
I never denied that anyone committed crimes against children. It is a unbelievable tragedy when it happens. There have been several stories in the news lately about heterosexual men who have kept girls as sex slaves for decades, in one case it was his own daughter. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543640,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar/
A comprehensive approach to teaching teenagers proper childrearing techniques may not stop cases like this. However, for the average student, it would be a huge improvement. If some of them get “turned off” from having a kid for a while, and do so later in life when they are better prepared to handle the situation, and will truly appreciate the child once he or she arrives, then I think the family as a unit is in a far better place.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"Here in Virginia where I live, LGBT people can be denied jobs, housing, loans, and even cab rides simply on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
"can be" is not the same as "are"
so can ugly people, fat people, obnoxious people, et al
why makes deviance such a make or break tolerance issue?
if I'm free not to do business with ugly people why am I not free to not do business with deviant people?
makes no sense
as it showed last Tuesday, Virginia voters have a lot of wisdom
""public schooling is one of the worst abuses of children ever" Is that why you, "Anonymous"...the one who sends your children to church-related schools...fight so fervently and assiduously against public schools here in Montgomery County?
Keep your children away from the Brothers and Priests, though. Who knows what could happen?"
None of my children go a church-related school and I'm not Catholic so if I did send them to one, there wouldn't be any "Brothers and Priests".
It's not a good thing to scare people away from having children. It is not the school's place to scare children, either. The schools need to butt out.
A bunch of feminist hags taught me in Montgomery County schools -- and they're still there doing their damage.
Oh, my "Anonymous"...you are virtually reeking with bitterness and bile. I am absolutely sure now that you were the same "problem child" in school that you continue to be now.
Perhaps the real damage occurred when you were released from any attempts to educate you, after 12 futile years, into the world! You have certainly proved that failure here zillions of times!!
Citizen
there are too many gay teachers in MCPS
there ought to be some quota
thee keep getting involved in these reprehensible GSA clubs
"Anonymous" you said: "there are too many gay teachers in MCPS"
And exactly what is your data to support this infantile assertion?
We all well aware of your hateful belief that one gay anywhere is one gay too many, so you are just spouting your usual crap.
We contend that one bigot like you is one bigot too many. Take your putrid hatred and go somewhere else.
Citizen
it's a safe haven for gays, where they are embraced so they flock to the schools and start GSAs
it's a problem that needs to be studied
The "problem", "Anonymous" is trolls like you who reek with hatred and vitriol. You are one fine example of Christianity..forever spouting your smarmy, holier-than-thou tripe.
But as t.v.'s Maude always pointed out, "God will get you."
You are a moronic hyppcrite, poorly-educated, beyond narrow-minded...a perfect poster boy for the "Tea Bagger Party" movement of loonies, hate-mongers, and malcontents.
Isn't it wonderful that you are tolerated in Montgomery County?
Adonis
I don't parents want so many gays teaching their children
it's a perfect example of tolerance run amok
liberals start their push by telling a government institution who to hire and then miscreants flood the ranks
unfortunately, kids are the losers
"Anonymous" - your last rant exceeds all of your previous rants in stupidity.
What on earth does: "I don't parents want so many gays teaching their children" mean?
"tolerance run amok"? Tolerance is the very cement of a civilized society. Too bad you can't accept that, but I will tolerate you.
And...the most bizarre comment of all: "liberals start their push by telling a government institution who to hire and then miscreants flood the ranks". Huh? "liberals"?
"miscreants"? "telling a government institution who to hire"? Do I sense some paranoia here?
You should stop trolling with comments like this before you embarrass yourself further.
Citizen
"Tolerance is the very cement of a civilized society."
indiscriminant tolerance can destroy a civilization
you must think before you hit the "publish" button, sit-on-zen
Tolerance generally implies "non-judgmental", or in the words of the American College Dictionary: "the disposition to be patient and fair toward those whose opinions or practices differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry"
I've always believed that tolerance, as taught by Jesus in the Bible, fit that definition exactly.
Your "tolerance" ("indiscriminant tolerance can destroy a civilization) is selective, judgmental, and bigoted.
It is your kind of "tolerance" that is destroying our society.
Post a Comment
<< Home