1 - 10 Next
Good article Gabriella. Thanks for raising awareness on this important issue.
I think that in a PC obsessed environment, which is what I believe what public education has become, Administrators and teachers will inevitably deem anything with a religious association as "disruptive" and attempt to censor it. I think that trusting administrators and teachers to be objective and fair minded in these situations is unrealistic.
In response to:

Jeb v. Hillary?

Marcos464 Wrote: Apr 07, 2014 12:28 AM
This is an important article that expresses what a lot of people feel but can't articulate as well as you did. The idea of Clinton vs. Bush sickens me. Are there no other people in this nation qualified to lead that can be given the opportunity to run?
In response to:

OkFascist

Marcos464 Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 9:11 PM
Well said.
In response to:

OkFascist

Marcos464 Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 9:11 PM
Two black female conservative columnists have written good articles here on TH denouncing the false equivalency of the Black civil rights movement with the push for SSM.
In response to:

OkFascist

Marcos464 Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 9:07 PM
As Andrew Marsh has noted, not all change is "progress", in some instances it's actually regressive. Claiming that the push for SSM is akin to true civil rights struggles of the past is fallacious. It's a device used to try and silence any voice of dissent on the SSM issue.
In response to:

OkFascist

Marcos464 Wrote: Apr 06, 2014 7:35 PM
One of the posters here shared this for informational purposes: OkCupid website letter: ""OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure." What is so amazing to me is that the above statement looks like it was written by someone with the intellect and sensibilities of a fourth grader. No allowance made at all for the possibility that those who do not agree with same sex marriage are not in any ways "bigots" or "haters" and may in fact hold to their position out of deep seated reasons of conscience and what they believe is best for societal structure and the welfare of children. No, just the assumption that we (OkCupid) are right on this issue and anyone who disagrees with us is terrible and deservers to have bad things happen to them. This type of simple-minded thinking is what leads to true intolerance, intimidation, acts of retribution by those who are seeking to be culturally dominant, and in reality, a less free society. Any person who truly cherishes freedom should be alarmed by what happened to this CEO. It could be a harbinger of even more blatant intolerance and intimidation in the future by militant "progressives" bent on silencing any voices of dissent about SSM.
"marriage equality" really means the redefinition of marriage to make it gender neutral. Change is not always "progressive" in many instances it is actually regressive. Even radical humanist Brendan O'neill believes the idea of "gay marriage" is not a good thing. And Jon Holbrook has observed: "The e-word had its place when there were inequalities that needed to be challenged. But in an era of equal rights, equality is being redefined. Instead of being used to challenge oppression, it is now used to challenge difference. In place of difference, equality seeks sameness." And unfortunately, with it an obsession with political correctness that will stifle true diversity of thought and expression. I agree with Christopher Caldwell who said: Christopher Caldwell has a point when he says: ‘Public opinion does not change this fast in free societies. Either opinion is not changing as fast as it appears to be, or society is not as free.’
Homosexual commentator Brian Sewell in Britain wrote about the redefinition of marriage in Britain: “But every minority has within it, a core of single-issue politicians and protesters who are never satisfied and always ask for more, and homosexuals, both male and female, are no exception. It is this noisy nucleus that demanded gay marriage and, seeing a handful of votes in it, David Cameron announced his support.” From the beginning, I don't think the militant homosexual lobbyists here or in Britain ever believed their own "live and let live" rhetoric. To me, it was always a ploy to try and achieve a type of cultural dominance. Brendan O'neill, who describes himself as a "radical humanist" is nevertheless opposed to SSM in Britain and believes that the widespread "acceptance" of gay marriage has more to do with powerful forces seeking conformity, versus people embracing this because of a true and open debate about the issue. Stories like this just corroborate what they both say.
Nice red herring that does not refute the points made. I did not say that homosexuals have not suffered prejudice in the past, but redefining marriage now has nothing to do with correcting any true oppression. The French comparison shows that when an agenda is imposed without true debate you have backlash from many quarters and not just the conservatives that progressives" delight in maligning as "haters" or "homophobes."
1 - 10 Next