1 - 10 Next
Maybe not. But our world is one of IMMENSE diversity and variation. There is little that is so rigid and cannot change among human beings. There are many kinds of normal. History, decency and social justice and the expansion of the human experience should have taught you by now the FOLLY of believing there is any supremacy in one human being over another. Especially on the basis of the ONE thing that might make them distinct. Like color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation. Being anti social, pathological are NOT exclusive. I guess you haven't learned. Well, those of us interested in social justice and human progress don't have time for you to catch up.
Barber wouldn't cite any research that supports the FACT that gay couples can and should benefit from marrying as op sex couples do. The FACTS are, that gay people are marrying someone who shares their same sexual orientation, as heterosexuals are presumed to be doing. The standards of marrying into a mutually consenting, adult relationship are the same for gay as well as op sex couples. The intention of the law for both is the same: custody and responsibility for each other and the children within that relationship. FACT: Gay couples can and have met these same requirements and WANT to. And have engaged in this responsibility, whether legally tethered to marriage or not. The fantasy, is an always has been Barber's. That marriage requires people to be good enough to marry, qualified ONLY by gender. But there ARE no religious, fertility, morals, skills, health or endurance requirements to marry. Marriage is worth just about ANYONE being encouraged to aspire to it. These are facts and I dare you to say differently.
That's funny you say that alhart. Because on this subject, marriage isn't really a matter of science to begin with. And RELIGION is exceptionally ALL about EMOTION. And people of fundamental faith, have been suspicious of science, human experience beyond the narrow religious view, the idea of independent critical thought and most of all, are rigid in their ideas about gender and it's reality and function in the world. MEN have relied on fear and ignorance to fuel the religious narrative, much more than rational and respectful tolerance. Herald of G is right about how men like Barber wax nostalgic about eras he'd never knew and traditions that had to change and were rigidly enforced purely on the basis of emotion. From not accepting soldiers marrying, women having no less autonomy in a marriage than a child...or pet, to mixed marriages being banned...science had been ignored for a long time in deference to prejudice. Barber is no exception there. So your comment is flat out contradictory.
I agree.What chips said IS.
It should occur to you that economic disparity has always been the most destructive of black family cohesion. Without a man's ability to work at the same wage level, or hope of fairness in hiring or promotion, he can't pass on the values that come with economic stability and confidence. The most control or lack of it, then tends to fall into where sexuality is the only place a black man is validated (or overcompensating for emasculation in all other areas of life). These conflicts, lack of access to the same stable neighborhoods and educational and economic opportunity leads to HOPELESSNESS. And hopelessness leads to the APATHY you describe. There has been deliberate and persistent ATTACKS on how and when black people can fairly compete in the marketplace. And every effort to level the field has been attacked too. Hopelessness is a mind killer, but let's not pretend there hasn't been a conspiracy to lead to it, and that a single generation of difference would change what took many more of them to implement and maintain. God and Jesus are STILL intangibles. And I find your call that being godly is going to change things, condescending. You're not charging the dominant culture that's benefited from black hopelessness with that. As you should. All that's needed here, is for black people to be believed and understood by their peers.
Sounds like you can't take 'white honesty', and don't want to recognize it as that. He's not feeling guilty. He's expressing something that's not often expressed, believed or understood.
There is nothing more exhausting, or more anger inducing, than to TRY to have an honest conversation about how covert and pervasive prejudice can be. It has to be graphic for some people to get it. Not just as a black person, but as a black WOMAN, I can attest to how devastating SUBTLE and less graphic and confrontational racism can be. It's over a LIFETIME. And no matter how much you WANT to forget, TRY and exhaust yourself into not seeing things through a certain lens, it's NOT paranoia or blame. The very previous generations who were shut out of successful neighborhoods, denied union jobs and status, work promotion or parity in wages with their white counterparts, haven't been able to pass down the economic and social parity so taken for granted by others. Blacks DO NOT have an all access pass. And WE are the ones tasked with WHY. WE know why. The hard part is getting anyone to believe us. Or care.
In response to:

I’m Wanted for ‘Hate Crimes’ in Canada

du2 Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 12:13 PM
If it's the Christians who throw the first stone, and from glass houses I might add, why wouldn't a Christian be prepared to have that stone thrown back? From people doing so in self defense and with better aim? Lesson here: Christians shouldn't be throwing stones in the first place.
In response to:

I’m Wanted for ‘Hate Crimes’ in Canada

du2 Wrote: Aug 13, 2014 12:11 PM
ARE you forced to tolerate people who you list? Where does any of that have to do with being gay? But tolerating bigotry IS dangerous. It's the kind of behavior that puts up with women being violated, Jim Crow, and law abiding, productive and responsible gay people being at risk of physical violence, if not a threat to their livelihoods and families.
In response to:

I’m Wanted for ‘Hate Crimes’ in Canada

du2 Wrote: Aug 11, 2014 2:34 PM
Reality check for ya: 1. These small businesses shot themselves in the foot by not being consistent in their 'religious' reasons for discrimination. Do they insist on ONLY serving virgin brides and grooms? No service to those who have ever divorced? Do they insist on having a sign that informs their potential custom of this? Or WHAT the religion of the owners and their employees is? No, they don't. In other words, they only get religion enough to refuse to serve gay people and that's all. It's tough to defend selective religious belief. And it's also tough to complain that a customer WILLING TO PAY and support your business, is hurting it by doing so. But blaming gay people is stock and trade. You're not getting away with it as easily as before. And THAT isn't persecution either. THAT is called justice.
1 - 10 Next