Off Topic Messages

Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:38 am

He/She/It should NOT be allowed to be a school teacher anymore.

There should be a federal law against transvestites & transgenders getting employment that is around kids.

One day.

I hope that President Dube will take care of that.

Tue Mar 14, 2006 10:22 pm

"likethebike" wrote:
I promised myself that I was not going to comment on this thread again but this idea that people should be coddled in their bigotry is just too much for me. It's really about time we start calling a spade a spade here. What we're talking about is homophobia and the disapproval is based largely here and a somewhat fear that a non-condemnation of homosexual lifestyle will make them question their own sexuality. Miscegenation was disapproved by "conventional morality" for generations. Time has proved there was nothing to that either.

I thought we were done too, but it seems there's more to chatter about as we move into a general discussion of gays in US society.I think Americans are much more accepting of gays today. We've made great strides and the notion that "homophobia" runs rampant is overstated to the point of fueling a backlash. Most people today accept that there are gay people but there is still a sense that it is not normal (technically, it is not the norm) nor should it be championed as the ideal. However, it now is seen as "part of life." When I mention all of this, it should not be seemed as being intended to upset or even be my own profession of belief. It's a form of analysis / "pulse-check" of where people are today.

It may or may not be the case that people "fear" that absent "anti-gay" feelings they will turn gay or see there kids turn gay (or "experiment") but this is rather unproved at best. It's more measurably a form of latent or outright disapproval, crossed today with a sense of "whatever you have to do," etc. The notion that gay people will be "taught about" in schools or that "marriages" of men and men are to be sanctioned remains more controversial. I'm not even so sure that' s bad thing. There's a point at which folks might just call it a victory and go home.

Again, I refuse to tar the masses of people in the country as "haters" although I concede it exists, ironically, among some religious people. And moreover, it remains a political point to foist the loaded-term "homophobia" into this. I agree it may exist, but it cheapens the gay civil rights movement. Black Americans did not say we were "raceophobic" because it wasn't (always) true. It seems like too pyschological of a term anyway. How does one prove "fear"? We just know when someone isn't liked or is maltreated. That's knowable.

And we may try to link anti-gay feelings to the legacy of racism and there are connections but again, gays can live in closets that blacks never can. A gay can "fake it" and "pass" - a brother in Harlem ain't fakin' that black skin. There's often a huge economic divide as well in this comparison. I do agree there are elements of commonality, to be sure.

The idea that liberalism has been hijacked by the cause is equally offensive. The truth is that liberals like John Kerry and the Clintons have gone out of their way to kiss the a**es of the homophobe crowd but have stopped short of outright condemnation which is simply too much for these guys. Bullies like Bill O'Reilly who can't stand any concession to any viewpoint other than his own have made oddball cases like this one the center of the party. Again only condemnation is enough to satisfy the status quo bullies.

Again the loaded homophobe term is used. A lot of people aren't motivated by this inevitably less-than-populist issue, unless tied to greater subjects of tolerance and respect. I doubt we've ever been as tolerant of homosexuality as we are today -and that goes for Republicans, too, not that many liberals want to acknowledge that. In fact, it is garden-variety hatred of gays that today is the socially poison in many circles. By and large, polite use of the terms "queers" and "fags" are just not going to be thrown around the way they used to be when i was younger. America has changed, and perhaps "grown up" as you might say.

But have the gay rights folks become a single issue movement ("gay marriage") and watch it become marginalized. We know that now.I notice you say nothing about the number of traditional Democrats who were driven by the party by the excesses of social liberalism (perceived or otherwise) into the arms of the GOP. If I'm a Democrat (and I am), I'm very concerned that Catholics (the Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians, Poles, etc) who were once the backbone of the party, now are asked to endorse "gay marriage" by judicial fiat and think this is just fine. You call them all the forboding "homophobes": I call them good, hard-working Americans who formed the base of the part (or part of it ) who antagonize as "not getting it." And "swing voters" matter too, those of neither party.People "get it" but don't buy into all of it. Extreme cases are where this become apparent, such as the "Heather Has Two Mommies" textbook flap or with the McBeth brouhaha. Otherwise, people are tolerant - to a point. I'd say it's a higher point then it may ever reach.

In the end, the party of FDR ends up, ironically, being the party of urban elites. That's a loser coalition of small fries with small-fry agendas. We can't write off America - or Peoria (or the South, or the Midwest) because some guy wants to get "married." Rome is burning economically, let's leave the social stuff to "tolerance" and stop "kissing the butt" of the "bullies" of the gay movement who label opponents "Homophobes", to use your colorful language.

Look at the idea that gays are all over TV and movies. A handful of shows and a handful of movies is not all over. I'm not saying there should be more but let's get it straight about all over. Again "all over" to this crowd actually means represented.

I say there are close to be over-represented in terms of their size in the general population, as illustrated by the recent Oscar telecast. And don't assume those who criticize gays are ipso facto gay bashers. It's a cartoon-like debate. I'm not even sure Republicans (like O'Reilly) or suburban soccer moms who vote for the GOP all "hate" the gays anyway. I'd say tolerance is bipartisan now, but the wish list for gay "shoulds.." is not bipartisan. Not anymore than everything the Black community asks for in 2006 is automatically heroic, with opponents being "racist."

I never made a direct comparison to Jim Crow but the hatred that was once widely accepted against blacks does seem to have been channeled against gays. I was at a high school banquet about two years ago and the kids must have made about half a dozen disparaging gay jokes in their speeches. I don't know if there were any gay kids in the crowd but it must not have been any fun if there were. That kind of ignorance should be coddled?

No. I think it's wise we have stopped and put social pressure on anti-gay bullying and probably could do more. Indeed, some of the more adventurous goals ("gay marriage") are struck at the heart of conventional middle-American morality that it has arguably made a bigger target of some lone gay kid out in Kansas. I alos think it was naive to think religion was suddenly going to lie still for :gay marriage".

Religion is a fact of life in the US (if not Europe, but stay tuned. ) and we need to change minds slowly or respectfully agree, otherwise we'll continue to just win Massachusetts. In any case, it should not be the such a big part of the agenda. I'm thinking in terms of strategy mainly, so perhaps my comments are more offensive as such. But I think its electoral reality and case of "what is possible?".

"When one is different maybe that person (You) has to live with it." Let's tell that to Jews or Catholics or even Christians on a worldwide basis. Things look a little different now. Much of the Muslim world disapproves of Christian beliefs. Should we conform to their prejudice? After all they're getting their input straight from God or so they say.
You may have forgotten but I originally turned that statement around on you, for it was you who said that the rest of America, in so many words has to live with it. I then turned it around and effectively said, how does that sound the other way around? It took a Chief Justice Marshall in Massachusetts to dictate to the public that she was going to redefine marriage via judicial fiat. There was and is a backlash to having a minority change everything in the so-called name of "equality." Redefine something enough (come one, come all) and you no longer have what it once was. You call that prejudice, I call it drawing lines. Life is like that. I respect the right to challenge this and everything, but it seems like the gay movement is sputtering as a result - and hurting their allies as a result. After all, a gay person needs to care about the economy, war, etc. The rest ultimately comes off as an indulgence, particularly when some it comes off as an elite, urban cause, which it probably is, incidentally.

I do not know what the problem is with letting a person live his or her own life which is really what this is about. I can see debate about the choices we make having an effect on others and the degree of that effect but it's not up to me to approve or disapprove.
Fair enough, and I'm glad you acknowledge that choices do affect others and don't appear in a vacuum. But I don't think the liberal notion of "never judging " will ever take full root.

Let me give you another example the religious folks can understand. There are pockets of believers out there who basically raise their kids using the fear of an eternity in Hell as their crutch.

Pockets, yes. I think this is an extreme and not the full picture of the US. There are many who attend church as do not take the fire and brimstone approach, practice it as much as a cultural traditional, etc. but the liberal cartoon of Christians as dolts and "homophobes" is the exaggeration. Yes, they exist, but pissing on the main faith of America will not bring many voters, either. If nothing else, in my view, the gay rights movement in the US needs to come up for air and be glad for the progress that's been made thus far.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:34 am

I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points. However, to understand how it was not liberals that hijacked the agenda, I want to point out John Kerry's stand on gay marriage (which again is a media term. Nobody is proposing gay religious ceremonies but civil unions.) : "I haven't made up my mind yet." That's an endorsement of gay marriage for the Fox News crowd. That's not putting extreme social issues at the center of your agenda. It's acting like an adult and realizing that there is some ambiguity issue. Yet that very acknowledgement is too much. You can get upset that he he's maybe wishy, washy on the issue but to characterize him on this comment as an advocate of gay marriage is insane.

And what is the devastating message with an endorsement of gay marriage? Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Morgan Quinto Press, a Kansas based group ranks states based on between 21-47 factors in a variety of categories. For the year 2005 gay marriage sanctioning Massachusetts- the most liberal state in the union- was ranked #3 smartest state, #6 healthiest state, the #21 safest state, and #7 state in terms of overall livability. The walls are really crumbling.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:56 am

As an ex-resident of that state for many years, I agree there is a lot to be proud of in Massachussetts. However, there is a strain of liberal elitism there as well. It also has an unusually large number of colleges (many super-obscure) as well as the huge state university system but also MIT, Harvard, Boston College, Boston University, Northeastern U.,and others of note, so its very workforce is increasingly of an academic stripe. I'm not surprised it ranks highly. It cultivates itself traditionally as the "Athens" of America and of course cheered the court's redefinition of marriage.

As laudful as all that "higher learning" is, it also paints a somewhat false sense of what America is about. The typical U.S. city is not 1/3 college students -and that's not including Cambridge. It also attracts a sizable gay population disproportionate to its ranks elsewhere. If it wasn't for the huge recent influx of immigrants (legal and illegal), the net population of the state would have continued its slide. I'm not sure that gay marriage will help that either.

My point with Senator Kerry was that mere shorthand alone, "Massachusetts" equaled "too liberal." For many elsewhere, the Bay State is embodied by the liberal lion" legacy of Sen. Ted Kennedy, felt toe be morally bankrupt personally but ever the champion of the under-dog -and some would say, taxes and so-called limosine liberalism.

Governor Mike Dukakis in the '88 race vs. President G.H.W.Bush was maligned with that tag but there's little to deny that the shoe sometimes fit, as much as I admire the guy. (On a local level, Dukakis still can be found on town council's advocating -and using- mass transit- as well as picking up trash. He's quite a guy, really.

So for Kerry's homestate to "go gay" so to speak in the spring of '04, I just knew, sadly, he wouldn't be president. It cemented the "too liberal" stereotype of the state -and the region. I'm not sure if the rest of America even wants Northeasterners anymore as the disdain for "liberalism" is a factor -and the population has shifted to the Sun Belt.

Alas, I do think the faltering Bush II may ensure another Democrat in the White House - of some kind- in the years to come. I"m just not so sure we'll see a true modern Russ Feinberg-style liberal.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:11 am

Still shouldn't it be some kind of lesson that Masschusetts allows gay marriage and doesn't tumble to the bottom of the rankings? In some ways I am as baffled by the right wing reaction to this as I am by the attitudes of the September 11 bombers after experiencing the US.

Gay marriage is allowed and the people still have jobs, they're making money, they're healthy. Why do you still think the walls will tumble? With the 911 bombers I've always wondered the same thing. Why didn't the evidence in front of their faces change thei opinions? They're working, they're making money, they can move about (too much so as they wish). I know in my case it would have altered my thinking in both cases.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:46 am

likethebike wrote:With the 911 bombers I've always wondered the same thing. Why didn't the evidence in front of their faces change thei opinions? They're working, they're making money, they can move about (too much so as they wish).

Because they are single-minded, insane, murderous psychopaths - that's why.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:48 am

likethebike wrote:Still shouldn't it be some kind of lesson that Masschusetts allows gay marriage and doesn't tumble to the bottom of the rankings? In some ways I am as baffled by the right wing reaction to this as I am by the attitudes of the September 11 bombers after experiencing the US.

Gay marriage is allowed and the people still have jobs, they're making money, they're healthy. Why do you still think the walls will tumble? With the 911 bombers I've always wondered the same thing. Why didn't the evidence in front of their faces change thei opinions? They're working, they're making money, they can move about (too much so as they wish). I know in my case it would have altered my thinking in both cases.

I don't think anyone seriously thought it would be a quantifiable "collapse" but rather a slower erosion of the "sanctity" (sorry) of marriage, to say nothing of the actually real probabiity of other interest groups "wanting in" with marriage, such as polygamists, which is inevitable. Some say that's a red herring, but I've heard of such a legal challenge underway...

Many gay advocates cheerfully awaited the May anniversay to say this very thing: see? no collapse of society. I also think it's becoming a bit of an odd duck state where this brand of libaralism is turning off some people. There is clearly (probably for financial reasons ) an exodus of Northeasterners to either the Sun belt or anti-tax, conservative border states like New Hampshire. Indeed, the Bay State may yet become the gay-friendly, self-styled "Athens" of America, an outpost of sorts. That may not be a bad thing -for those who have a need for it.

How much more federal funding that state can withstand I'll never know. I do know that since McGovern won (only) Massachusetts, the feds have not been kind to this key original colony.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:13 am

Better a transvestite teaching kids than one cross-dresser in the closet using the FBI to go against supossed communists or simply non-conservatives

Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:00 am

This thread is turning into yet another gay debate. I don't see this transexual as gay. A homosexual is a person who has a sexual desire or attraction for others of the same sex. This fellow felt he was really a female inside and had a sex change. I don't see how this equates to homosexuality. Personally, my primary concern about this guy is how good a teacher he is. Yes the sex change is something that gives me cause for concern, but perhaps the answer is to transfer him somewhere else rather than prevent him from teaching?

Bike: I heard Senator Kerry clearly say he was against gay marriage during the debates.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 6:03 am

I don't doubt that he did say that Pete but how does translate into him moving the agenda over to a fringe cause then?

I brought the gay issue up because I think the main cause of concern in an issue is that I think it is locked up in the same prejudices as the gay debate. And how much of an issue is this really on its own standards? There can't be more than a few thouand transexuals in the entire world.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:11 am

likethebike wrote:There can't be more than a few thouand transexuals in the entire world.

Enough to fit in an internment camp. :)

And maybe just a few thousand "Buffalo Bill" types too.

How many Michael Jackson types? Even less?

Gosh, so small in number, IGNORE THEM :shock: let them accummulate enough victims, like a quota, until they become an issue.

LTB - your perception of Bill O'Reilly as a "bully" is proof of ignorance about O'Reilly. He's passionately hawkish against child rapists and the wimp judges who let them go.
Lemme guess... you too want child molestors to go free.

La de da, it's their freedom to express themselves

Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:19 am

Gosh that's a courageous stand for the little guy. Wow, someone taking a stand against raping children. What courage. Next thing you know he'll take a stand against nuclear war.

He's constantly dumping on gays, the poor and anyone less fortunate and constantly, figures without his power of a cable news show to fight back. That's a bully to me.

As I have pointed out before short sentences for child rapists and the like have far less to do with liberal sentencing laws than they do with overcrowed prisons.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:03 am

What's in the best interest of a child isn't exactly one of your concerns, is it, Likethebike?

You side with the freaks and weirdos all too often and skirt the issue about the protection (both physically and morally) of children's innocence.

I want to say shame on you. But maybe - in your talent for writing 15 paragraphs - you just can't formulate the words to prove you care about the kids. All you seem to care about is the freaks and weirdos, and their feelings and their rights.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:12 am

don't expect 100% mainstream acceptance and tolerance of the Gay theme any time soon.

Don't forget the "Rerun" factor.
Several times a year, every year, there's re-broadcasts of Archie Bunker calling Roger a xxx and Fred Sanford suspecting a guy of being gay and Fred is disgusted by that -
and hey, don't forget all those many many many many episodes of Jack Tripper pretending to be gay and his landlord mocking him and insulting him.

Gay is an insult. Gay is the butt of a joke.
Maybe it was just a 70s thing.
But all of that still airs.

happy surfing.

Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:24 am

Spanish_Eyes wrote:Better a transvestite teaching kids than one cross-dresser in the closet using the FBI to go against supossed communists or simply non-conservatives

There's Spanish Lies again , overcome with love for America :lol: :lol:

Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:28 am

I find it ironic (and more than a little amusing) to see narrow, bigoted comments about gays rightly excoriated..........while narrow, bigoted remarks about Christians and Conservatives are contained in the same posts.

Some bigotry is just more socially acceptable these days..........and I don't mean gay bigotry.