It's a sort of moral Laffer curve - more and more hay being made out of less and less sun...
And further and further away we get....
-From a guy who has a gay son....-
Phyllis Schlafly and Alan Keyes have gay children. Shalit is neither of these people, but gay child does not equal supporting gays.
What's so horrible about wanting birth certificates changed to reflect same-sex parents? I think this right should be extended to any parents who are there for a child from birth, whether they are gay or not.
-Basically, there was an implication made that if straights don't see the flick, they're more than likely bigots. -
Can you tell us some of the people in charge of our "cause" who said any such thing? Or do you think that any homosexual who has an opinion you disagree with is heading up some kind of a cause?
You seem to be making wide assumptions about gays based on a few incidents. If wanting bullied and abused gay teenagers to have their own school is one of the worst moments you can cite, then the gay community must be in better shape than I realized.
This is a good column from Deb Price about some of the real problems facing gays in some states now. I hope we can worry more about those in 2006, and less about who is greedy or who wants too much.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.../601090312/
1272
...but gay child does not equal supporting gays
No, but when said child comes back in defense of said father, that says something.
The birth certificate thing... What's so bad about keeping it the way it is and crossing out "mother" and putting "father" if it's that big of a deal? Why do we need to alter something that's been in existence for some time now just so it fits better with our lifestyle? (Nevermind the fact that I just find the whole idea of Parent A and B to be ridiculous.)
Can you tell us some of the people in charge of our "cause" who said any such thing?
The brouhaha I believe was started on Sully's site. And I can't say that anyone specifically "said any such thing", hence my use of the word "implication".
And I think you're missing the larger point of the post. These incidents taken by themselves may not be such a big deal. But they continue to pile up. Taken together, it appears the gay community is doing its damndest to alienate itself from the rest of society. Whether that be by pushing the majority away by freaking out over every little "slur" that is made, or by segregating ourselves into schools so we can be "protected"...
We expect the rest of the country to open its arms to us (and bitch when they don't) while at the same time closing ourselves off to them.
-
No, but when said child comes back in defense of said father, that says something.-
Yes it does, but you didn't mention any defense. You only said Shalit has a gay son.
-
The birth certificate thing... What's so bad about keeping it the way it is and crossing out "mother" and putting "father" if it's that big of a deal? Why do we need to alter something that's been in existence for some time now just so it fits better with our lifestyle?-
What are we altering? Most birth certificates will still be the same. We aren't forcing any other parents to change their birth certificates. The "let's not change anything that is already in existence" argument can be murky at times. If we use that idea, then what if our ancestors had said, "Hey, why do we need to fight for our own country, sure we have to pay high taxes, but England has been in charge of us for years and years, why change what already exists?"
-These incidents taken by themselves may not be such a big deal. But they continue to pile up. Taken together, it appears the gay community is doing its damndest to alienate itself from the rest of society.-
Some of these incidents are several years old. The Harvey Milk School was one school, and last time I checked, the school may be predominantly gay, but admits all students. This reminds me of the argument where Tucker Carlson complained about elderly gays who wanted to live in a predominantly gay nursing home. Should we also criticize these people for wanting to close themselves off?
Some, like the birth certificates, have barely made a ripple. For the most part, the gay community has worked very hard to assimilate themselves into American life.
Some of the incidents you focus on are specifically geared towards protecting those who are seen as vulnerable. Schools can be sheer hell for gay teenagers. They drop out, they turn to drugs or prostitution, or if they stay in school they are constantly tormented, and now some states like Utah and Georgia are trying to turn back the clock on gay/straight alliances. If some at-risk kids want to go to their own school, I don't see the objection. We've already debated the prison situation, but as I said at that time, this is a situation where gay prisoners are one of the most vulnerable targets for people who will rape and kill them. They aren't closing themselves off - they are already closed off from society. That doesn't mean they should be put into a system where they will be targeted and served up for lunch (and yes they can request to be in special protection, but there's no way the prison will put all of them in special protection).
-Whether that be by pushing the majority away by freaking out over every little "slur" that is made, -
How are we pushing the majority away by complaining about a review of Brokeback Mountain?
You complained about gays who think BBM is The Important Gay Movie, but you seem to place an equal amount of importance on this
film and the public's reaction to Shalit's review of GLAAD's reaction to Shalit. Most people probably don't notice or care about any of the three.
Chad, I DO think the gay community has problems. Where I disagree is with the idea that the gay community is a bloc which moves this way or that way. We can both find many faults with one decision or another decision made by some gay groups or some gay citizens. But where does that get us?
I know some conservatives say America has become more hostile to gays, and liberals are to blame because of poor strategy. Maybe that's true. I personally think America is just somewhat apathetic and they will go along with what people in power want unless they have a reason not to go along.
I would love to hear some strategy about what to do. Instead I just hear so much about what we're doing wrong, and how terrible things are.
In the 90's, some of my liberal friends blamed everything on white men. They claimed if white men were no longer running everything, America would be better. I finally asked them what plans they had to improve America. They just stared at each other, and said they didn't want to come up with anything while the white men were still in charge. These people were too busy making themselves feel morally superior to really make an effort.
People like that are why I became more conservative. I don't want conservative gays to follow in that measure. I want us to come up with ideas. Not just come up with complaints or grievances.
BOT, ala Chad's lead and Ace's point: if someone is a bigot because they didn't go see some group's "watershed" film, then I'm in deep trouble with the Lord and a rare practicing-Catholic-but-anti-Catholic-bigot because I didn't go to see "Passion of the Christ"... or maybe I'm anti-Semitic because I didn't go see "Schindler's List"... or maybe I'm a racist cause I didn't go see "The Color Purple" or maybe I'm an aggressive militarist because I didn't see "Born on the 4th"?
No, it's more a problem with liberals. In their LaLaLand, dominated by Hollywood values, if you don't watch the latest film, don't read the true newspapers, or don't stay glued to the TV for your enriching entertainment quotient, then you're not worthy of consideration.
Don't see BBM? Well, you're a bigot damn it and a neanderthal and aren't hip with what's hot.
I say, I'm OK with their shorthand for gauging acceptance --they're the ones making a mistake.
I'm still a good Catholic. I'm still gay. I'm still pro-Israel. And I support the troops and military leadership of our country.
Don't want to see BBM? I understand. I can't imagine some of my str8 friends watching some of the scenes in that film --anymore than I want to watch Michael Douglas boff his trophy wife in a flick.
It's definitely a problem with the liberals as far as BM goes, but specifically with the gays who feel that everyone should see this movie. Maybe they should, and maybe it'll change minds and change the world for the better. But implying that people who don't want to see it are probably bigoted is my issue.
There could be a multitude of reasons for not wanting to see ANY film. Maybe you're not a Tom Cruise fan. Maybe you're not big on war films. Maybe excess gore is too much for you to handle. That wouldn't make you anti-anthing. Just makes you a person with your own likes and dislikes in regards movies.
-BOT, ala Chad's lead and Ace's point: if someone is a bigot because they didn't go see some group's "watershed" film, -
Again I can only ask - how many major gay organizations or individuals have said that avoiding BBM = being a bigot? I have seen some straight people, like Mickey Kaus, being very defensive about why they don't want to see the film, but I haven't seen a lot of gays out there demanding straight people see the movie.
I feel like I'm going to repeat myself, so I won't ask that anymore in this thread, I promise.
Again Carl. It's not necessarily each individual issue that I have a problem with. It's when they're taken together that it begins to paint gays having the mindset of "all or nothing and then some".
Saw the movie with my married female friend .
She calls it " Homewrecker Mountain".
Her point, "why do gays think nothing of sleeping around with married men but women sleeping with married me are rightfully called homewreckers?" She pointed out how
phoney the scence when the guy is in the house with wife and kids was.
She pointed out that in the 60 "s
people in the rural west had more respect for things like marriage and kids and still do ! So that type of situation would never had happen. Excellent point.
robbie, I don't really get her point. Adultery has ALWAYS existed. Even in the 60's in the rural Midwest. At the time this movie takes place, the 60's/70's/80's, more and more couples were divorcing.
Does your female friend object to all the movies like Bridges of Madison County and Out of Africa and Same Time Next Year that glorify women committing adultery?
And then there's Angelina Jolie, who is celebrated by the tabloid press and who had a hit movie after she began a relationship with a married man. Not exactly being punished for homewrecker status.
That seems like such a strange comment to make after one movie. To make such a value judgment against gay men, to say they think "nothing" of sleeping with married men.
IMHO, birth certificates should reflect the genetic parents of the child only, because, children who are orphaned due to accidental death of the parent(s) and end up adopted may need to find this information out later in life for medical reasons. It's only fair to the child. As long as the child knows who raised them, and knows them as Mommy and Mommy, Mommy and Daddy, Daddy and Daddy, whatever, then a piece of paper shouldn't matter much.
GLBT schools are a BAD idea. Nothing like keeping gay teens from developing the social skills they'll need to deal with bigots in the real world after high school! And I find it funny that some same-sex marriage proponents, who argue that separate is inherently unequal (which I agree with) can stand there and in the very next breath state that orientation-segregated schools are a good idea! It boggles the mind.
Commenting by HaloScan
