You're quite welcome. I'm not lecturing anyone, including the gay community, but straight or gay, I am entitled to my opinion about the two parties, and I don't find either has a lot to brag about in this regard (or a lot of other areas I am concerned about). I understand (or at least surmise) you feel differently, and that doesn't bother me in the least, nor will I accuse you of lecturing me.Scooter wrote:What I am saying is that the records of the two parties on this issue are not even remotely comparable, that EVERY legislative initiative to advance gay rights has been the result of overwhelming Democratic support in the face of overwhelming Republican opposition, and that we don't need a straight man with whatever chip you are carrying on your shoulder about the Democratic Party to be lecturing us about who our allies are, thank you very much.
The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
I thought I'd address the opening post - whether it's fake or not, it carries a good, sincere and powerful message.
It's great that it's getting such a lot of publicity. I think that if reading that leter causes a few parents to feel a bit embarrased, and/or mentally slap themselves on the noggin, and/or have a little light bulb moment, and to actually 'get' the message and maybe apply it in their own family, then it will have been a very good thing, regardless of whether it's fake or not.
When my kids were very young, my oldest son used to 'help' me with some of the housework, and I bought him a toy ironing board because he liked pretending to iron. The only colour children's ironing boards could be bought in was pink, and so his ironing board was pink. At the time I didn't realise I was being revolutionary in my approach to raising my children without restricting them to 'boy' toys etc - I just always fought very strongly to let them be themselves. Things like whether he liked pink, or wther he preferred playing with toy stuffed animals to toy cars weren't things I thought about. I didn't think in terms of what it meant for them in the future - i just went with the present.
Around that time I had a wonderful neighbour who now I think of it was very progressive. somehow the discussion came up one day of parents and their attitude if their kids ended up being gay - she had two girls in their early teens, which is irrelevant but I'm just letting my thoughts meander as I write. Anyway, she said that there were a lot of people who thought they were fine with the whole gay concept, until it came to their own kids: then they were all NIMBY (an acronym for 'not in my backyard'). ... meaning they were fine with it as long as it was happening to 'other' people and 'other' families, but not in their own family. She said that her attitude with her own kids was that she didn't care who they chose as partners - what gender, colour, religion, race, whatever - as long as her kids were happy and their partner treated them well. She said that a good parent should be wishing the best for their children, no matter what. She said she was uncomfortable with PDA's (public dispalys of affection - such as excessive smooching in front of her) no matter who it was between: she didn't need to know all the bedroom details regardless of who they were bedding: she just needed to know they were happy, and support whatever choices they made.
My oldest was probably four at the time, and I remember being quite profoundly affected by what she said. I'd like to think that i would have been fine anyway - after all I was already buying pink ironing boards without even thinking twice about it! - but I just felt that her words were extremely wise,and obviously I've always remembered them. I have endeavoured, as my children grew up, to make sure they were given every opportunity to find their own paths in all aspects of their lives, and to be genuinely supportive of their choices.
On a side note, one of my children is left handed. I didn't know in early years, but I never tried to structure anything to be right or left handed. That's because when i was young I was ambidextrous, and it used to annoy my father very, very much. He used to make me 'be' right handed. And because I hold my pen like a left hander in my right hand, and like a right hander in my left hand, he used to always have 'goes' at me every time he saw me writing, because I had to hold the pen in my right hand, and hold it 'properly' (ie like a right hander). The end result was that I avoided writing whenever my parents were around. I stopped trying to do homework in front of them etc. (I used to sneak up in the middle of the night and do my homework in the bathroom, when everyone was asleep, or try to do it at lunchtime, or just skip it altogether).
I'm not ambidextrous any more - partly because of my parents constantly intimidating me all through my growing up not to be like that because it was 'weird' and 'wrong' and 'different' and all of that, and partly because I smashed my left hand up in an accident a few years ago and since then can't grasp things with that hand as well as with my right hand. I can still use my left hand almost fully and no-one would normally notice anything amiss, but because of the accident and the length of time and phsysio etc it took to get it back into shape, and the resultant slight restriction of movement etc, I have now 'become' fully right handed. But I still hold my pen in my right hand like a left hander - that one never got battered out of me!!
Anyway, I was determined that my children could be whatever hand they wanted, so when they were starting to eat at the table I never used to set the knives and forks in 'place' - I used to put them in together at each place setting and let the kids hold them in whichever hand they found comfortable. Likewise pens etc. And when they started using kiddie scissors I made sure I had right and left handed scissors available. And when they started helping with things like peeling the potatoes I made sure that we had a peeler for exclusive left handed use and one for right handed use (because vegetable peelers end up with a sort of 'bias' if they're always used one way) , etc etc.
I don't seem to have ended up with any of my children truly ambidextrous, but they all swapped hands here and there when using cutlery and other things until they found their preferences, and they are all quite versatile with either hand - but I have ended up with two very definite right handers and a very definite left hander. I feel that in allowing my children to find their own 'way' in hand preferences, there's a bit of a 'bigger picture' life lesson there that ties in with what my very wise neighbour said all those years ago. I don't care what their preferences are, as long as they are comfortable, well adjusted, confident with themselves and their own 'skins', and feel always supported as they are growing up and making their own decisions in all aspects of their lives.
Oh ... and my oldest son is the one in the Army, and pink is his favourite colour
It's great that it's getting such a lot of publicity. I think that if reading that leter causes a few parents to feel a bit embarrased, and/or mentally slap themselves on the noggin, and/or have a little light bulb moment, and to actually 'get' the message and maybe apply it in their own family, then it will have been a very good thing, regardless of whether it's fake or not.
When my kids were very young, my oldest son used to 'help' me with some of the housework, and I bought him a toy ironing board because he liked pretending to iron. The only colour children's ironing boards could be bought in was pink, and so his ironing board was pink. At the time I didn't realise I was being revolutionary in my approach to raising my children without restricting them to 'boy' toys etc - I just always fought very strongly to let them be themselves. Things like whether he liked pink, or wther he preferred playing with toy stuffed animals to toy cars weren't things I thought about. I didn't think in terms of what it meant for them in the future - i just went with the present.
Around that time I had a wonderful neighbour who now I think of it was very progressive. somehow the discussion came up one day of parents and their attitude if their kids ended up being gay - she had two girls in their early teens, which is irrelevant but I'm just letting my thoughts meander as I write. Anyway, she said that there were a lot of people who thought they were fine with the whole gay concept, until it came to their own kids: then they were all NIMBY (an acronym for 'not in my backyard'). ... meaning they were fine with it as long as it was happening to 'other' people and 'other' families, but not in their own family. She said that her attitude with her own kids was that she didn't care who they chose as partners - what gender, colour, religion, race, whatever - as long as her kids were happy and their partner treated them well. She said that a good parent should be wishing the best for their children, no matter what. She said she was uncomfortable with PDA's (public dispalys of affection - such as excessive smooching in front of her) no matter who it was between: she didn't need to know all the bedroom details regardless of who they were bedding: she just needed to know they were happy, and support whatever choices they made.
My oldest was probably four at the time, and I remember being quite profoundly affected by what she said. I'd like to think that i would have been fine anyway - after all I was already buying pink ironing boards without even thinking twice about it! - but I just felt that her words were extremely wise,and obviously I've always remembered them. I have endeavoured, as my children grew up, to make sure they were given every opportunity to find their own paths in all aspects of their lives, and to be genuinely supportive of their choices.
On a side note, one of my children is left handed. I didn't know in early years, but I never tried to structure anything to be right or left handed. That's because when i was young I was ambidextrous, and it used to annoy my father very, very much. He used to make me 'be' right handed. And because I hold my pen like a left hander in my right hand, and like a right hander in my left hand, he used to always have 'goes' at me every time he saw me writing, because I had to hold the pen in my right hand, and hold it 'properly' (ie like a right hander). The end result was that I avoided writing whenever my parents were around. I stopped trying to do homework in front of them etc. (I used to sneak up in the middle of the night and do my homework in the bathroom, when everyone was asleep, or try to do it at lunchtime, or just skip it altogether).
I'm not ambidextrous any more - partly because of my parents constantly intimidating me all through my growing up not to be like that because it was 'weird' and 'wrong' and 'different' and all of that, and partly because I smashed my left hand up in an accident a few years ago and since then can't grasp things with that hand as well as with my right hand. I can still use my left hand almost fully and no-one would normally notice anything amiss, but because of the accident and the length of time and phsysio etc it took to get it back into shape, and the resultant slight restriction of movement etc, I have now 'become' fully right handed. But I still hold my pen in my right hand like a left hander - that one never got battered out of me!!
Anyway, I was determined that my children could be whatever hand they wanted, so when they were starting to eat at the table I never used to set the knives and forks in 'place' - I used to put them in together at each place setting and let the kids hold them in whichever hand they found comfortable. Likewise pens etc. And when they started using kiddie scissors I made sure I had right and left handed scissors available. And when they started helping with things like peeling the potatoes I made sure that we had a peeler for exclusive left handed use and one for right handed use (because vegetable peelers end up with a sort of 'bias' if they're always used one way) , etc etc.
I don't seem to have ended up with any of my children truly ambidextrous, but they all swapped hands here and there when using cutlery and other things until they found their preferences, and they are all quite versatile with either hand - but I have ended up with two very definite right handers and a very definite left hander. I feel that in allowing my children to find their own 'way' in hand preferences, there's a bit of a 'bigger picture' life lesson there that ties in with what my very wise neighbour said all those years ago. I don't care what their preferences are, as long as they are comfortable, well adjusted, confident with themselves and their own 'skins', and feel always supported as they are growing up and making their own decisions in all aspects of their lives.
Oh ... and my oldest son is the one in the Army, and pink is his favourite colour
Life is like photography. You use the negative to develop.
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
The REAL civil rights battles were concluded long ago and any residual challenges to actual civil rights are rare, conspicuous, and short-lived. No American citizens are denied the right to vote, own property, move from place to place, hold office, gain public employment, attend a tax-funded school, or participate in any meaningful civic activities due to their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preferences.
Most of today's "civil rights" noise is contrived by people who have a vested interest in keeping alive the myth of denied rights in order to justify their political viability or public notoriety. Jesse Jackson is a dinosaur. Rampant (and ineffective) discrimination, mainly against caucasian males, infects our public and private institutions under the perverse and meaningless banner of "Diversity." Our president and his queen sit on their velvet thrones largely as a result of an insidious disease that was called, "Affirmative Action," which was a public policy of discriminating in favor of selected groups of individuals due to their race, gender, etc., etc., etc.
As for "gay rights," most of that noise is also contrived. The illegality of homosexual sodomy (the defining activity of homosexuality) was universal, and unquestionably constitutional for the first 200 years after the ratification of the Constitution, as anti-sodomy laws preceded and followed the ratification of the Constitution by that long and more. But such laws have been either repealed or found Constitutionally unacceptable, so we are all free to carry out whatever sorts of "private" activity we choose, without interference from the State. Thus a new "civil right" has been created, and is not in dispute. Not even by Republicans.
And all Americans are free to associate with anyone they like, both publicly and privately, and there is nothing in any law that prevents people of the same gender from living together, professing their lifetime devotion to one another, and telling their friends they are "married." Indeed, hetersexual couples have been doing that for eons. It's called, "common law marriage." SOmetimes it is recognized by the State, sometimes not.
There has never been a "civil right" to get married by the State. Civil marriage is an institution that was created to protect and preserve a very specific paradigm of our social culture. That paradigm does not apply to two people of the same gender, and is in fact totally inappropriate for people of the same gender. Thus, there is no "right" of two people of the same gender to get married, and the State's enforcing its laws logically is not a case of denial of "civil rights."
But we have reached the point in society where the Left has basically destroyed the institution and most people just don't give a crap anymore. Marriage has devolved into little more than a pageant like the Senior Prom and there is no real concern about diminishing the institution because for most young people it is already a joke. The very idea that our Supreme Court is seriously considering the creation of this ridiculous "right" says a great deal more about the state of the Federal Courts than the civil rights of anyone who might benefit from this creation.
In my own view, the State can define marriage any way it wants, and I'm fine with it. But I resent having it shoved down our throats by the Supreme Court, on the pretense that it somehow violates "equal protection."
Most of today's "civil rights" noise is contrived by people who have a vested interest in keeping alive the myth of denied rights in order to justify their political viability or public notoriety. Jesse Jackson is a dinosaur. Rampant (and ineffective) discrimination, mainly against caucasian males, infects our public and private institutions under the perverse and meaningless banner of "Diversity." Our president and his queen sit on their velvet thrones largely as a result of an insidious disease that was called, "Affirmative Action," which was a public policy of discriminating in favor of selected groups of individuals due to their race, gender, etc., etc., etc.
As for "gay rights," most of that noise is also contrived. The illegality of homosexual sodomy (the defining activity of homosexuality) was universal, and unquestionably constitutional for the first 200 years after the ratification of the Constitution, as anti-sodomy laws preceded and followed the ratification of the Constitution by that long and more. But such laws have been either repealed or found Constitutionally unacceptable, so we are all free to carry out whatever sorts of "private" activity we choose, without interference from the State. Thus a new "civil right" has been created, and is not in dispute. Not even by Republicans.
And all Americans are free to associate with anyone they like, both publicly and privately, and there is nothing in any law that prevents people of the same gender from living together, professing their lifetime devotion to one another, and telling their friends they are "married." Indeed, hetersexual couples have been doing that for eons. It's called, "common law marriage." SOmetimes it is recognized by the State, sometimes not.
There has never been a "civil right" to get married by the State. Civil marriage is an institution that was created to protect and preserve a very specific paradigm of our social culture. That paradigm does not apply to two people of the same gender, and is in fact totally inappropriate for people of the same gender. Thus, there is no "right" of two people of the same gender to get married, and the State's enforcing its laws logically is not a case of denial of "civil rights."
But we have reached the point in society where the Left has basically destroyed the institution and most people just don't give a crap anymore. Marriage has devolved into little more than a pageant like the Senior Prom and there is no real concern about diminishing the institution because for most young people it is already a joke. The very idea that our Supreme Court is seriously considering the creation of this ridiculous "right" says a great deal more about the state of the Federal Courts than the civil rights of anyone who might benefit from this creation.
In my own view, the State can define marriage any way it wants, and I'm fine with it. But I resent having it shoved down our throats by the Supreme Court, on the pretense that it somehow violates "equal protection."
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Poor Dave. He and the remaining fringe who share his antediluvian mentality recognize but are not yet willing to acknowledge that they have lost the war to frame society according to their own prejudices, and can do nothing but bloviate impotently.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Thus wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court in ruling on Loving v. Virginia. This has, of course, been pointed out to Dave scores of times previously. He pretends that his imaginary law degree makes him more of an authority than those nine justices. Poor Dave, nothing left to sustain him but his own delusions.Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"
btw Dave, have you managed to find an animal to teach you how to suck dick yet? Since you were asking so earnestly the other day, just wondering if you had any luck.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Great story Alice, and good to see you post again!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
I think Dgs is jealous of all the attention rubato has been getting lately so he's upped his game
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
FixedBig RR wrote:The republicans opposed civil rights for blacks? Check the voting patterns on the civil rights act of 1964 or the voting rights act (1965) and you'll see significant republican support--indeed, the biggest opposition came fro the southern democrats(future Republicans all), not the (small number of) republicans (who supported it).rubato wrote:20 years from now people will look back and wonder how the party which opposed civil rights for blacks, and which opposed equal rights for women, and which opposed equal right for homosexuals can think they ought to ever win an election?
yrs,
rubato
As for opposing equal rights for gays, how (few) democrats voted for the defense of marriage act?
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Actually a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for DOMA. The votes went 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate (all nay votes came from Dems, except for one from a gay Republican in the House).
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Which was covered already in this thread but why let facts get in your way?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: The Closets will soon be Opening for Good...
Once again the fellow who proved he couldn't read a simple one column table, and concluded 46 is 1/4th of 80, brings us the unique perspective of Rubatoan Mathematics:the (small number of) republicans (who supported it)
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/un ... .04.x.html.]
H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.
Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats.
"Rube Math!
Ru-u-ube Math!
It won't do you a bit of good to review math...
It's so stupid, so very stupid,
That only a moron can do it!"
ETA:Ru-u-ube Math!
It won't do you a bit of good to review math...
It's so stupid, so very stupid,
That only a moron can do it!"
Next Week...graphs!
