| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/03/2012 01:39:31 PM · #5851 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Brainwashing at it's finest. It's like if Rosa Parks was like "Oh yea, you're totally right, I SHOULD go to the back of the bus." |
If it works for you on an individual level, then who is anyone else to say what you should think? Clarence Thomas has a life time appointment because he thought that way. |
You know I really had a think on this. A long long think. A long long long think. And I tried to see... is he right? And I have decided that I just can't agree with this statement. I mean in a general sense, sure, no one can really tell anyone how to live their lives. Though we all do it, and those fighting against equality are obviouslt far overreaching their bounds on how much they control the lives of others.
When it comes down to it though, this mindset, doing what you have to do with in a broken system, hurts my very core. It's like a bargain with the devil... if I believed in such things, this would be it. And Clarence Thomas is an especially bad example because his choices don't just affect himself on an individual level, they effect our whole country. What a selfish sentiment. Well, things are working for him, so screw everyone else.
I will never go against the best interests of equality to get ahead because there would be no happiness, no joy in that sort of "ahead". That sort of behavior is no better than this. Making yourself look foolish for someone that has more power than you. Even if you're just playing along, you become the fool no matter.
And in the end... you realize all of that power was an illusion. In the end, when it really comes down to it, we are just people making all this crap up as we go along. All the borders, cultures, rules. They are the very evidence that what you think comes to be. There is no "America" or "gay" or anything. It's just things we pieced off and categorized and gave names to.
End philosophical rant.
Message edited by author 2012-08-03 13:40:26. |
|
|
|
08/06/2012 03:58:03 AM · #5852 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by David Ey:
....and sales at chic-fil-a have skyrocketed. |
As is usual when media saturates the ignorant. |
Are you calling me ignorant? When I make similar comments one of the SC deletes it.
BTW, have you driven by any of the stores? It is unbelievable how busy they are. |
Uh, no. I am calling the masses of people propogating the chic-fil-a phenomenon ignorant. |
|
|
|
08/06/2012 01:43:12 PM · #5853 |
|
|
|
08/06/2012 06:29:59 PM · #5854 |
Seems a case of false attribution... This article was frankly really obnoxious to me. He seemed to blame all of his problems on his mother being bi when in reality that probably had very little to do with it. People are people. Kids with picture perfect families can end up weird and messed up, single parent homes, foster homes, gay homes, etc. To say that his problems were because he grew up with two women, without giving any indication of what kind of mothers they were, what kind of lifestyle he lived aside form that, taking into account his OWN personality, to me just seems like he's playing the victim and shooting in the dark as to the cause of his distress.
"My home life was not traditional nor conventional. I suffered because of it, in ways that are difficult for sociologists to index. Both nervous and yet blunt, I would later seem strange even in the eyes of gay and bisexual adults who had little patience for someone like me. I was just as odd to them as I was to straight people."
Doesn't the fact that straights, bis and gays alike thought he was weird give him some indication that it wasn't just his "home life" not being traditional?
"I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast." Sounds a bit defeatist, "destined'. Alright buddy, you keep telling yourself that.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 10:36:20 AM · #5855 |
| I think his point was to share his story in the context of the larger study he quoted. The study has generated controversy, but he feels it cannot be simply dismissed and he offers his life as an anecdote of support. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 02:51:40 PM · #5856 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think his point was to share his story in the context of the larger study he quoted. The study has generated controversy, but he feels it cannot be simply dismissed and he offers his life as an anecdote of support. |
I understand his trepidation with the study. The point is though that you can find screwed up kids in all manner of households, but the anti-gay movement doesn't think like that. There is the tendency towards minority bias. A straight, Christian married couple turns out to be crappy parents and raises messed up kids, you blame them as people, not their sexual orientation or religion. If it's a gay couple though, I doubt there is as much allowance if you already want to prove gays can't raise kids. And this guy seems to be doing that with his OWN parents. It's just stupid to me.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 03:28:38 PM · #5857 |
| From what I read of the study, it seems to conclude that you can't draw conclusions yet until you get a big enough sample. The claims aren't "empirically warranted." |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 04:20:30 PM · #5858 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think his point was to share his story in the context of the larger study he quoted. The study has generated controversy, but he feels it cannot be simply dismissed and he offers his life as an anecdote of support. |
I understand his trepidation with the study. The point is though that you can find screwed up kids in all manner of households, but the anti-gay movement doesn't think like that. There is the tendency towards minority bias. A straight, Christian married couple turns out to be crappy parents and raises messed up kids, you blame them as people, not their sexual orientation or religion. If it's a gay couple though, I doubt there is as much allowance if you already want to prove gays can't raise kids. And this guy seems to be doing that with his OWN parents. It's just stupid to me. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "trepidation". In my reading he was saying, "This study makes sense to me. Look how screwed up I feel my life is." You understand the study quoted was saying that children raised at least in part by gay, bisexual, or lesbian parents were different in a number of ways than children raised by married heterosexual parents?
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 17:30:56. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 07:19:07 PM · #5859 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think his point was to share his story in the context of the larger study he quoted. The study has generated controversy, but he feels it cannot be simply dismissed and he offers his life as an anecdote of support. |
I understand his trepidation with the study. The point is though that you can find screwed up kids in all manner of households, but the anti-gay movement doesn't think like that. There is the tendency towards minority bias. A straight, Christian married couple turns out to be crappy parents and raises messed up kids, you blame them as people, not their sexual orientation or religion. If it's a gay couple though, I doubt there is as much allowance if you already want to prove gays can't raise kids. And this guy seems to be doing that with his OWN parents. It's just stupid to me. |
I'm not sure what you mean by "trepidation". In my reading he was saying, "This study makes sense to me. Look how screwed up I feel my life is." You understand the study quoted was saying that children raised at least in part by gay, bisexual, or lesbian parents were different in a number of ways than children raised by married heterosexual parents? |
Different? Everyone is different.
|
|
|
|
08/07/2012 08:07:06 PM · #5860 |
PuppyBear, I found this article rather fascinating. Thank you for posting it. ;-) |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 08:15:05 PM · #5861 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Different? Everyone is different. |
you forgot the rest of the line, "...but some are more different than others." ;) (I jest. I'm playing off Animal Farm.) |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 08:27:14 PM · #5862 |
Here's a VERY interesting riposte on the subject of Regenerus's controversial study, to which the author of the piece I posted was offering anecdotal support, and which is tagged by many professionals as being a seriously flawed piece of work. In a nutshell, the author of THIS one is saying it doesn't even MATTER if the study is flawed or not, for a very convincing reason :-)
Scientific American Blogger on Mark Regenerus's work.
Message edited by author 2012-08-07 20:29:37. |
|
|
|
08/07/2012 08:42:22 PM · #5863 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Different? Everyone is different. |
you forgot the rest of the line, "...but some are more different than others." |
Marriage rights, for example... |
|
|
|
08/08/2012 11:19:15 AM · #5864 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a VERY interesting riposte on the subject of Regenerus's controversial study, to which the author of the piece I posted was offering anecdotal support, and which is tagged by many professionals as being a seriously flawed piece of work. In a nutshell, the author of THIS one is saying it doesn't even MATTER if the study is flawed or not, for a very convincing reason :-)
Scientific American Blogger on Mark Regenerus's work. |
Oh! More fascinating reading!!! Thanks Puppy Bear! |
|
|
|
08/08/2012 07:31:31 PM · #5865 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a VERY interesting riposte on the subject of Regenerus's controversial study, to which the author of the piece I posted was offering anecdotal support, and which is tagged by many professionals as being a seriously flawed piece of work. In a nutshell, the author of THIS one is saying it doesn't even MATTER if the study is flawed or not, for a very convincing reason :-)
Scientific American Blogger on Mark Regenerus's work. |
I just have to +1 this. |
|
|
|
08/08/2012 07:42:05 PM · #5866 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a VERY interesting riposte on the subject of Regenerus's controversial study, to which the author of the piece I posted was offering anecdotal support, and which is tagged by many professionals as being a seriously flawed piece of work. In a nutshell, the author of THIS one is saying it doesn't even MATTER if the study is flawed or not, for a very convincing reason :-)
Scientific American Blogger on Mark Regenerus's work. |
I just have to +1 this. |
It's just so danged level-headed and PRACTICAL you have to be in awe of it. If more folks could see beyond the rhetoric and the polarization to the actual, real-world, bedrock involved, we'd be better off for sure. |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 01:48:17 PM · #5867 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a VERY interesting riposte on the subject of Regenerus's controversial study, to which the author of the piece I posted was offering anecdotal support, and which is tagged by many professionals as being a seriously flawed piece of work. In a nutshell, the author of THIS one is saying it doesn't even MATTER if the study is flawed or not, for a very convincing reason :-)
Scientific American Blogger on Mark Regenerus's work. |
I just have to +1 this. |
It's just so danged level-headed and PRACTICAL you have to be in awe of it. If more folks could see beyond the rhetoric and the polarization to the actual, real-world, bedrock involved, we'd be better off for sure. |
Agreed but the road she cautions us to avoid just so happens to be the interstate freeway to policy making in this country. Heck, it even has a few hundred on-ramps in Rant. It's hard to find a conservative or liberal who will stay off it when it doesn't benefit their argument or themselves in any way. |
|
|
|
08/10/2012 03:21:21 PM · #5868 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Here's a VERY interesting riposte on the subject of Regenerus's controversial study, to which the author of the piece I posted was offering anecdotal support, and which is tagged by many professionals as being a seriously flawed piece of work. In a nutshell, the author of THIS one is saying it doesn't even MATTER if the study is flawed or not, for a very convincing reason :-)
Scientific American Blogger on Mark Regenerus's work. |
I just have to +1 this. |
It's just so danged level-headed and PRACTICAL you have to be in awe of it. If more folks could see beyond the rhetoric and the polarization to the actual, real-world, bedrock involved, we'd be better off for sure. |
Exactly.
This whole issue to me really comes down to the same reasons people opposed interracial marriage, it made them feel uncomfortable. They had some "ick" factor for whatever reason and had to justify it with their religion, bogus science, bad explanations, etc. It's the same with the gay marriage debate. There is no logical argument against it, try as the antis might to pretend there is. It comes down to "I think you are icky so you are NOT equal to me."
There have been lots of studies about this right brain/left brain phenomenon, not just in terms of discrimination. It's very common that we have a feeling we cant explain coming from the right brain, and our left brain steps in kinda like a big brother, protecting the right brain with some "logical" explanation. Sometimes it's for instincts that are right on but without explanation, and sometimes, as we've seen with this gay marriage debate, it's for discrimination that is not based in any sort of reality. The gut is good for spit second decisions when it's all you have, its not so great in debates such as this. |
|
|
|
08/15/2012 12:07:43 PM · #5869 |
What Those Photos of Anderson Cooper's Boyfriend Kissing Another Man Could Teach America
"But in my fantasies, we're not gunning for gay acceptance -- especially not if the only way we're granted it is by "behaving ourselves" and struggling to fit into a heteronormative mold (which, as far as I can tell, hasn't really benefited heterosexual people very well, either). Instead, I want us to be pushing for queer liberation, which, to me, has always meant that when it comes to sex and love, we all get to do whatever we want with whomever we want as long as we're not hurting anyone." |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:38:15 PM · #5870 |
I've taken some time to settle down and process my unhappy reaction to this thread.
I've been here a long time. Part of why I love photography is that it's quite democratic... anyone can be a photographer and have their say. This allows me to interact with a broader range of people than I would normally meet in the other social circles I'm a member of, and it's something I really value. Of all my pursuits, photography exposes me to the broadest range of ideas and attitudes.
Photography can be, but is not by nature political. Liberal, conservative... that doesn't matter when picking up a camera. Consequently, it's in the realm of photography that I have the most access to a conservative viewpoint.
I'm going to reiterate what I said earlier. It is my interaction with conservatives here, on this very forum, that has indeed soured my hopes for any sort of reconciliation. This is really the only place where I've been able to have a sustained, detailed debate with 'the enemy' about many topics that hit close to home. And after so many years... where have we gotten?
I've mentioned that I hope to use the posts of others here as examples of bad thinking, for I feel that it's observing the actions and beliefs of others that is the single most convincing method for bringing change to one's own thinking. I try to use myself an an example, too. To be the gay voice, to show how many of these issues effect me personally, and to decode the language of the right from a gay perspective. To be blunt, I've also wanted to culture a little sympathy for people like me. To humanize homosexuals. And I thought I had an easy example this time... to point out the spin conservatives are putting on obviously hateful speech to protect their own. To decode "just a family man stating his own opinions and exercising his 1st amendment rights" and "gay bullies attacking a poor defenseless company" for what they really are... the voice of bigoted privilege.
But if, at this point, people can't plainly see the difference between calling down damnation on an entire culture because of who I am as a person vs. supporting traditional marriage... what is the point? Even now, DrAchoo is saying stuff like "Must I fall in line and proclaim my full support for gay marriage to earn her respect?"
No. He could take the time and listen to what many of us have actually asked. He could stop running interference and making excuses for bastards like Cathy... but he's still digging up numbers to minimize the effect of CFA's political donations. Why, at this point, is it still about Cathy not being that bad of a bigot? Why haven't we moved on to "Gosh, these sentiments always seem to come from disingenuous a-holes playing semantic games, maybe we should reconsider why we feel the way we do?"
Thank you to everyone who tried to rephrase my point.
Unfortunately, my efforts aren't working, and I don't want to slip into repeatedly highlighting the distasteful statements of others to no good end... at that point it's just character assassination. As pleased as I was to see some folks hit back, I'm still unhappy with the direction as a whole.
Finally, I guess I just can't let go my reaction to being told I was sour on arrival... I feel that was just another attempt to dismiss my point of view much like Monica being told she's angry. Alas, I was being quite truthful... and I don't like that being questioned. It's blinkered statements like these, the general intractable nature of conservatives in this forum, and their willingness to stand next to, even support, the bigots in their ranks, that has done the most damage to my hope for change. Debating relatively reasonable people for years, and still watching them fall back into line the next time an hot button issue arises... it has taken an ignorable lunatic fringe and bonded them inextricably to the majority of moderate conservatives in my mind, ruining my ability to compartmentalize.
After all, both sub-groups believe and 'support' the same things... it's only their justifications and tone that vary... and we can easily see how culture itself determines what justifications are safe to offer at any point in history. From my point of view, this is just the latest iteration of underlying personal 'ick' writ large as divine will. To reiterate a point I have made many times here... until moderates put more energy into distancing themselves from people like Cathy than they do supporting people like Cathy... you're your own worst enemy.
It's so very depressing.
Message edited by author 2012-08-16 14:42:00. |
|
|
|
08/16/2012 02:49:27 PM · #5871 |
What I fail to be able to fathom after all this time is how some people feel they can justify their stance that any other couple getting married has any effect whatsoever on their marriage. Just because their definition of marriage doesn't conform with someone else's doesn't affect their own relationship.
To me, this just makes no sense, and never will.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2012 10:10:55 AM · #5872 |
Peter, I'm seeing your words much delayed now. There will always be hold outs on the extremes, whats important is that the societal tides are shifting. Just came to post a little happy dance about the recent voter victories in Maryland and Maine. Things are tipping, it's only a matter of time.
Voters approve same sex marriage for the first time.
Also we now have our first openly gay senator, Tammy Baldwin.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2012 12:33:51 PM · #5873 |
And in other good news...
Gay marriage upheld in highest courts in Spain
I was recently in Spain and saw lots of open gay couples. It was a nice change of pace.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2012 12:06:44 PM · #5874 |
Monica, you are right, the tides are shifting. We can see that in the results of the election. But in the last decade plus, I have gone from an optimist to a pessimist about individual people's ability to change. What we are seeing here is a cultural change, not necessary a personal one. We are winning a war of attrition, not a war of logic and justice. And that's increasingly how I see all conflicts of this sort.
Since the beginning of the battle over equal access to marriage, the conservative case has been that whenever it has been put up to a vote, The People have voted against the rights of gays, as if that confers some sort of moral superiority. That has now changed, with four major wins at the polls and many smaller wins, including numerous elections of openly gay politicians. You'd think that would recalibrate conservatives, as their assertions have been voided.
But what do we see?
Frank Schubert, the man behind the Prop 8 ad campaigns:
"The activists in the homosexual movement are very aggressively trying to spin the election results as somehow signaling a big shift in public opinion on the issue of gay marriage, when in fact it doesn't signal any shift at all"
Before the polls: It's all about the polls. After the polls: The polls don't mean anything.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, the leader of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, doubling down on denying gays the right to marry:
"The election is a symptom of a much larger problem... most people don't understand what marriage is."
(Loving the condescension, it's so... familiar!)
Ken Hutcherson, Washington pastor:
"I am sick and tired of the homosexuals taking words that God has given us, I am sick and tired of the homosexual community taking our rainbow when God gave us that promise that He would not destroy the earth with water again. We have just become irrelevant, we are just sissified, we are evangeli-fish with no spiritual vertebrae and we need to wake up."
Yeah, by securing equal rights and having flags, we're stealing from them! I didn't know English was spoken in Jerusalem back then. Also, last I checked, fish were vertebrates. It's freaking embarrassing.
These sorts of reactions (there are many, many more, I assure you) and my utter failure to effect any shift in opinion here (even on what I feel are clear, cut and dried issues with obvious right and wrong I'd hope most would agree on objectively) no matter what tone or tack I take, have taught me more about human nature than anything else in my life. Seriously. People believe what the want to believe, and will do anything to bolster it. I believe that gays deserve equal rights and are good people, based on my own life experiences. That is intractable. Nobody will change that. Some here believe the opposite, because of their upbringing and interpretations of an old book. This is also, apparently, intractable.
At this point the best I can hope for is that, over time, my reality will win the day because of it's basis on the present, not the assertions of our elders. I can have hope in that, even if I have lost hope that I can personally sway people who already hold an opinion. The best I can do in this regard is be married, be family, be successful, and live a life I am proud of as an example to those that come after me, robbing religion of it's boogeyman.
I just wrapped up a week vacation with my mom and a former teacher of mine visiting to help my husband and I design a garden for the front yard. That week has done more for gay rights than anything I've ever said here. Handing out candy on Halloween for the first time in 5 years did too. And that's why I've backed off in these threads over the last year or so. My priorities have shifted. My new neighborhood (etc.) is more important than picking apart specious arguments on an internet forum to no effect. I'm basically giving up to let an idealist with more fire pick up the slack, or not.
I have given up on the conservatives here. You're on your own now, guys. |
|
|
|
11/13/2012 08:39:48 PM · #5875 |
Well Mouse, Rome didn't fall in a day. Give the USA time. It's well on it's way.
|
|
