Previous 21 - 30 Next
There was no 'once upon a time'. During this time you're so nostalgic for, those two parent homes were still under siege. Stresses from the fathers never getting the same opportunity or nor access to those things that make families more stable, weren't allowed to happen. Without that stability, marriages crumbled, entire neighborhoods were plagued by survival crime and blacks continue to be isolated deliberately in ways people don't ever think about. The back when, you're talking about. Like fathers unable to join labor unions, shut out from promotions and families not having the enterprise zones and financial support that whites have had, affected generations to come, because none of the gains could be inherited or benefit them. Hopelessness sets in. And that, obviously, has proven to be a deadly and persistent issue. There is responsibility that can be taken, but don't let the people who have had a huge head start off the hook.
Dr. Evelyn Hooker, was the psychologist who changed how research on gay males was advanced. Which had up until her research, had come from a narrow sampling of the institutionalized only. Other doctors followed in her methodology and THAT is why the DSM changed in from a disorder. And rightly, gay citizens deserved to have their voices heard when it came to involuntary institutionalization on the basis of this difference alone, and not any factors to do with personal or public endangerment. Doctors in every branch are obligated to continue to update and change their research and results, as their sampling becomes more available. So, no doctors are going to maintain medieval methods on any given group of people, while allowing modern research and civil protections for another. So yes, the changes came due to research, science AND modern social justice and that IS how a civil society does advance human and civil rights for it's citizens. Homosexuality isn't a problem for gay people. It's a problem for those prejudiced against them. You are taught to distrust and be hostile to gay people from a standard that's unhealthy and unnatural unto itself. Otherwise, you wouldn't know a gay person from a straight person where function and productivity is concerned.
Where to begin with such ignorant and ill informed blather on your part? Even the most credible in the medical and psychiatric establishment don't agree that a person with clinical disorders be denied the opportunity to work, marry and engage in whatever interests and responsibility they choose and can manage. Clearly, you don't know what a paraphilia and pathology is, neither of which are EXCLUSIVE, nor more prevalent on the basis of sexual orientation. Nor do you care to acknowledge the clinical differences between what is anti social behavior and what is not. In civil law, these differences ARE acknowledged and must be. It's lost to you, that gay men and women for the most part, when given the SAME opportunity and in spite of not having it, succeed at the same things a heterosexual can. You like to think you know gay people, but that's only from the abstract and a legacy of being denied the same ability and opportunity to fully function in society. There is a difference between not being able to, no matter the opportunity, and being KEPT from it, on a narrow basis and definition of behavior. It is a life or death and quality of life matter for the LGT. For people like yourself and Brown, it is NOT. You not now, nor ever have been or would be harmed by productive and responsible gay citizens being enabled in this even more. And repeating over and over, the anecdotal incidents of a religious person defying civil obligations, isn't a gay person's fault. Gay people were existing before your religion came along and decided to be offended by them. Not the other way around. Religious fundamentalism has done far more damage to civility between cultures than homosexuality ever did, because homosexuality is universal to all human life, and your religion is not. Of all the social imperatives like poverty and violence in our nation, that need to be addressed, why are Barber and Brown, Adams and so many other fixated on the lives of gay people?
In response to:

Uncommon Common Sense on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 11:14 AM
It's essential to marry someone who shares your same sexual orientation. What purpose is there to a heterosexual marrying someone gay? It's not just about gender. So since there is no moral, skills, religious, endurance, fertility or health requirement to marry, gay couples DO meet the same basic standards of marrying. Which are age minimum, consent and be non married and non related. And there ARE gay adults raising the next generation of citizens too. Win win for everyone, because gay couples participating in the same responsibilities of marriage and child raising, doesn't harm the heterosexuals doing it too. Or is that too logical for you to grasp?
In response to:

Uncommon Common Sense on Marriage

du2 Wrote: Nov 24, 2014 11:11 AM
Evidently eddie, you don't know the difference between legal marriage and MATING. Marriage is a legal construct that's evolved over time to be more egalitarian and no one subjugated on the basis of gender. Mating and making babies is something any animal does. Meaning marriage is strictly a man made construct. For advocates of 'natural' marriage to try to make that a defense of bans against gay couples, like to pretend that being gay isn't also natural. And that obviously gay couples need to have legal protections and responsibilities for each other and the children they are raising. The only difference, is gay couples are marrying someone of their same sexual orientation. That's what heteros are presumed to be doing. Every requirement is the same for both types of couples. Look at it this way. We all have blood, but we don't all have the same type. But in sharing blood, it's essential that those types match. B+ is the most common type, as is heterosexuality. But that doesn't mean type B is morally superior, it's just different, but accomplishes the same thing. Understand?
How is that a progression, when polygamy has been culturally accepted for centuries? Even in a Western nation like this, polygamy being established by the Mormon church? Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty family so much as touted marrying and having sex with teen girls, and he's treated like a hero of Christian conservatives. And in fact, in nearly half the states, grown men CAN marry underage girls. That is how Jerry Lee Lewis was able to marry his 13 year old cousin. Some of these laws have been in effect a century and a half. But have the anti gay 'pro traditional marriage" activists tried to overturn THOSE laws? No. Progress, has been egalitarian marriage in which gender isn't a cause for subjugation and disparity in a marriage. And a gay person can marry someone of their same sexual orientation, as heteros are presumed and allowed to. It's heterosexuals who established the ALL of the marriage laws, from trading brides for livestock, killing them when they don't satisfy, and making women property and non autonomous in marriage. I don't know what history books you've been reading, if any. But you sound like someone that doesn't know the history of marriage in it's reality whatsoever.
I"m not ignorant of what the Bible says. I'm WELL informed. I said the Biblical era CULTURES thought the world was flat. I didn't say it said that in the Bible. And those thinkers who tried to advance astronomy during the age of the Roman CC at certain heights of it's powers, WERE punished for advancing any information beyond certain limited thought. What is true, is the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of abuse whether it specifically says to or not. THAT is the point. It is rightful to be mindful that such abuses are not continued, or allowed. Which is why the Constitution and Bill of Rights were specific about THAT, and also expanded it's amendments to grow as social advancement did too. What the Bible is supposed to have taught, and whether those applications have been brutal, and disrespectful of different people and their human and civil rights, is another thing. So take you lack of even reporting on my comments correctly and stop proving that your emo is more important to you, than the facts before you on education and the 21st century.
And how are you crippled, or your ilk for that matter? Empty claim again. As David pointed out, would you consider a professor asserting the inferiority of a person of color or a woman, a 'differing view", that deserves to be accepted? You seem to forget that the Bible was used to define and deny all kinds of college entrance to women, people of color and gays. So, you're fine with teaching defamation and distrust as truth, as long as only gays take the hit for it because you believe it. It's not about being offended, but advancing something already proven to have no positive or meaning effect on education and civil discourse. You love believing that gay people are weak, or have delicate sensibilities that are intolerant of whatever YOU want to say? What a projection and hypocrisy on a large order. I don't follow YOU on this issue. Don't flatter yourself. I'm keeping myself informed on what anti gay articles or whatever is being fomented as part of the volunteer work I do with the Simon Weisenthal Center. I come to TownHall on invitation of Larry Elder and his mentor from KABC Talkradio. They had me sit in on their shows, and I've guest hosted there myself. I don't want anyone to be forced to shut up, actually. I'm hoping that the best and brightest eventually will challenge you or ignore you. Obviously something that YOU and your ilk truly can't deal with. The proof of that, is how dissenting truths and information gets deleted and banned from the areas of media in which you ilk controls.
I did refute it, you just hate to acknowledge that I did.
Well, other than being specious again on your part, I'll try. What acceptance IS fair to demand, is that a gay person not be punished, casually assaulted and denied the opportunities for accomplishing what heterosexuals do, and are sometimes applauded for. Sex has nothing to do with it. But the PUBLIC activities like teaching in schools, serving in the military and paramilitary, adopting children and marrying, participating not just in the general welfare and responsibility of being a citizen, but also in the rights and freedoms and protections guaranteed for doing so. It's not illegal or punishable to have non procreative sex. Not even immoral really. But I gave you what is reasonable and what gay people actually demand and it's been nothing but fair for them too. Because success in the same things heteros have success in, only serves the public good. And a happy productive citizen is the same, whether gay or not, when free to do so. THAT is progress.
That's just the problem, you don't know the difference between defamation and the truth. And there is a moral obligation to if there is an honest conversation about what defamation is and Starne's purpose in WHAT he reports on and how. But Starnes is obsessed with maintaining distrust of gay people. He baits, and you take it every time. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Why you're not curious, and why you're not asking does make people smarter than you are, and yes, they exist, see why you'd embrace why you'd believe Starnes. But racists are eager to believe all the negative they can as the truth about the object of their bigotry too. See?
Previous 21 - 30 Next