Patters

I was fair. I said that a belief in the right to discriminate equally against anyone is not necessarily bigoted, but it does benefit bigots and obviously since it's likely there are more straight bigots than gay bigots (or white bigots than black ones, Christian ones than Jewish ones), since straights are the majority, it would hurt gays more than it could hurt straights. I think the same logic can be applied when talking about gay marriage, and is a key aspect of the argument against bringing the issue to a vote.

Oh, come on RW, the sanctity of marriage stuff is bs. Every day there's a tv show or some form of popular entertainment that demeans marriage. Shows like Joe Millionaire and some of the talk shows are good examples of that. The sanctity of something should refer to it's inherent goodness, not some institution that is beset with divorce, affairs, prenup agreement, domestic violence, etc. Take two people, let them live in a caring and loving relationship, and I don't think you can get any more sanctity than that.

And I think civil unions are a logical first step. Once the whole nation has civil unions with the same rights as marriage, it will then be merely a semantic discussion.

Patters

Well, I don't think it's radical. Heather is under the law allowed to have two mommies, and our schools should teach acceptance and tolerance. In fact, many conservative churches that oppose gays also believe in acceptance and tolerance. If the book is being used to promote the advantages of the gay lifestyle that would be wrong.

That's true, but it has to happen over time. If someone like you comes to accept that gays are okay, then the next step is to try to persuade you that gays should have some rights, and then the next is try to persuade you that gays should have equal rights. Radical groups too often push things too quickly and that leads to a backlash. On the other hand, the experience of every minority group is that you have to push for rights because no one is going to hand them to you on a silver platter.

Within churches there are already people pushing for that kind of thing, and as in the Anglican church that kind of push can lead to a split, but it's not like those who believe gays are sinners don't have anywhere to turn. You can force someone to respect the law, but you can't force someone to change their heartfelt religious beliefs.

Do you know any gays? Even if you don't think you do, you probably do. The vast majority of gays lead perfectly ordinary lives. As gays have become more accepted, there's been more and more assimilation, and fewer gay kids have ended up in abusive relationships because they've had church groups, private foundations, and other programs to turn to for help.

It's a slippery slop, though. Would you support that hotel owner if he turned away an interracial couple or a Jewish couple, or how about a pacifist hotel owner who turned away soldiers?

Unfortunately, the path to acceptance of what people do in their own homes involves winning a degree of public acceptance.

On the other hand, the free market could easily turn bigotry into a niche market. There are still white-only or male-only country clubs, and surely some of those must be oriented towards bigots.

Real World

I wouldn't disagree with the arguement against bringing it to a public vote, which I mentioned in a previous post regarding the question of it being a pols responsibility to protect the rights of citizens. This debate does fall under that for some people, to others it does not. To me it's a matter of what is constitutional. If the constitution dictates that it be put to ballot, then it should be.

So wait, are you trying to say that because the Hollywood Wife Swappers (2 cents to Harry, and another 2 cents to Qui for the 2 cents to bit) ridicule and demean marraige, that it shouldn't be respected or protected? That's ridiculous. So now Hollywood is the moral, and ethical compass that the beleivers in heterosexual marraige should look to and follow? If Marraige is such an unsanctimonious institution, then why such a fight for the right to be married? You can't say it sucks on one hand, and then demand the right to do it on the other. If marraige is not the issue, and two people loving and caring is, then why all the clamor? Why aren't Civil Unions enough?

I, like you, beleive that this is a very possible scenario.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

I hope you're not from Lexington then.

Parents rip school over gay storybook

Lesson reignites clash in Lexington

By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff | April 20, 2006

In a controversy with a familiar ring, parents of a Lexington second-grader are protesting that their son's teacher read a fairy tale about gay marriage to the class without warning parents first.

The teacher at Joseph Estabrook Elementary School used the children's book, ''King & King," as part of a lesson about different types of weddings. A prince marries another prince instead of a princess in the book, which was on the American Library Association's list of the 10 most challenged books in 2004 because of its homosexual theme.

''My son is only 7 years old," said Lexington parent Robin Wirthlin, who complained to the school system last month and will meet with the superintendent next week. ''By presenting this kind of issue at such a young age, they're trying to indoctrinate our children. They're intentionally presenting this as a norm, and it's not a value that our family supports."

She complained more than a year after Lexington parent David Parker was arrested for trespassing, because he refused to leave the Estabrook school grounds until administrators allowed him to opt his son out of discussions about families with same-sex parents. The latest incident has renewed the efforts of Waltham-based Parents' Rights Coalition to rid the state's schools of books and lessons that relate to homosexuality, and led the school system to reemphasize its stance on teaching about gay marriage and related issues as part of larger lessons on diversity and tolerance.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...gay_storybook/

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

So there aren't women only groups, african american societies, etc? Why does it always come down to the evil white man as being the only bigots around. Sure, there are white, loser bigots in this country, we all know that. What bugs me is how it's presented in this forum, by some, as they're being the only ones.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

QuiGon

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Silly me, I think schools should teach math and science, not acceptance and tolerance. Why should schools force a child to "accept and tolerate" things the parents strongly oppose..? Sounds more like indoctrination to me.
I have no problem with equal rights, as long as those rights do not infringe on others. Equal rights under the law are fine. Forcing everyone in the country to accept and endorse a certain lifestyle is not.
Yes I know some openly gay men and women. I've even broken bread with a homosexual on an occassion or two (gasp!). But let me clarify a remark I made last post... they may lead perfectly ordinary lives, but you will never convince me that a gay man or woman is "perfectly ordinary" within their gender. There are just too many stereotypes which I feel are perfectly valid. Let's just say I would bet the average gay guy knows more showtunes than the average straight guy. You may see that as a bigoted stereotype, but I see it as simply common sense.
If you're asking me would I support such an owner, then the answer is no. But if you're asking me if I feel such things should be allowed under the law, I could go either way.
Well I don't belong to any such organizations, so I can't comment on how they are orientated. But this gets back to a double standard liberals gladly promote... if something is "white-only" then it is bigoted... but there is nothing wrong with a "black-only" fraternity on campus or club or something like that...

Patters

You can use Hollywood, I can various ministers, tv shows (some of which I'm sure were on Fox) like Joe Millionaire, etc. Neither side has shown respect for the institution of marriage, and the phrase "sanctity of marriage" came along only in response to gay rights.

I believe as strongly as anyone in loving, committed, and honest relationships. I don't care if it's called marriage or something else, but the rights under the law must be exactly the same. After that, we can argue which term to use, and both terms should logically apply to gays and straights. What difference will it make if it means the same thing.

Are you talking about the sanctity of term "marriage," or the sanctity of the institution marriage. All I'm saying is if you're talking about the latter, then why should the gender of the couple matter anymore than the race, age, or religion. 50 years ago interracial marriages were considered as bad as some people consider gay marriages today. (In Alabama a few years ago, the voters defeated a proposal to eliminate language in their state constitution that outlawed interracial marriages.) 100 years ago it was considered absolutely awful for people of different religions to marry. In the eyes of the law, I'm not even short "sanctity" should play a role, except insofar as we consider it to refer to love and respect.

Real World

Lets ask Hollywood what they think.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

Showtunes. Yes, that's true, being gay, you can't avoid them. I had a friend who had 45 different Judy Garland records, and I can't stand her. But, that kind of stuff is a remnant of another age when gays were limited in where they could find acceptance. That has changed in the last two decades, and today's young gays may have a nominal knowledge of gay history, but in general wear the same clothes and listen to the same music as their straight friends. Most clubs these days are no longer exclusive to gays or straights.

Any group that excludes people because of race, etc. is in the wrong. There's nothing wrong, however, with a group that advocates for blacks, gays, etc. provided it also welcomes whites, straights, etc. into its ranks. That said, there is also another dynamic in that minorities often have to band together to more effectively confront the majority.

BelichickFan

Hey, how am I back in this ?

That's right. If I owned a business and only wanted to hire White Men between, say, 30 and 40 . . . then more power to me. Of course I will have trouble hiring as I'm wiping out about 80% of my potential employees - but that's my choice.