Off Topic Messages

Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:04 pm

Torben wrote:Greg

you wrote:Oh, it's just like [...] taking off your boots.

Eeek! Ok, I'll never ask again.


"Eek!" about McBeth..or someone taking away your "imports"? :lol:

Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:44 pm

This is where we have a big issue Greg. You keep using phrases like "show and tell" that imply the man is making an issue of the change. That has never been implied and if that is the case it is another issue. If he's not making an issue it's not show and tell. It's just an odd looking women substituting.

I never said it was normal or should be "normalized" but normal IMO does not necessarily equal good or moral.

One of the reasons I defend is that it's not changing a shirt or a sweater. The people who do this think about it profoundly.

Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:16 pm

If it is profound, then recognize as well that it accounts for the "End of the world" reaction of those who (a) "fear" it (b) disapprove on moral grounds of accepting one's lot in life as you are born into a sex , etc.

I agree that the "show & tell" comment is a bit inflamatory and admittedly mere rhetoric . I doubt he's going to want to "do it up," especially now. I doubt it, but then, one never knows. Even subdued, he'll always have to live it down.

I do wonder, though how his kids feel. It's not the epic "I'm finally me" when you were married for years, served in the armed forces and fathered and raised kids and are six years into being able to collect social security.

If I was a journalist, an interview with "Junior" McBeth is one I would want to get. Now there's another part of the story.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:32 am

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me it's personally profound but has little impact on the outside world.

Ask a kid in Newark if he wouldn't trade his circumstances in two seconds if the only hardship he had to endure was occasionally looking at a transexual teacher.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:41 am

I think the ghetto example is true, but then we wouldn't sweat the details about a lot of mundane things every day if we got caught up in someone's misery (or our own). That is, I still have to gas up the car, buy a loaf of bread, etc. I can't tear my hear out over the latest earthquake in overseas, either. I don't stop having opinions on political subjects from A-Z based on a misery index. There would be sweeping, if subtle, changes with society if we all threw up our hands.

But I get your basic point. By hearing it, perhaps I"m more relaxed now about it. I do think there is a culture war going on over what appears to be small changes and people are noticing and talking back about it. "War" is a strong word, but I know what they mean. I've heard left and right acknowledge it.

Yes, as you know, I'm amenable to gentlemanly disagreement. I respect your positions and do like to hear the case made, on this and other subjects.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:47 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Save your 20-something condescension -and spelling checks- for someone else, Cryo.


Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:And as the posts from Scatter and GG above illustrate about Likethebike, many of us prefer to speak honestly without personal insults. And I'm as big a critic of the worlds ills and don't need a 23 year old telling me I don't care, nor a lecture on so-called fear.


Congratulations: you can click the "Profile" button.

By the way: what you're saying there ISN'T condescending to me? :shock:

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:And like I said, I was atttempting to explain the mainstream bias against sex changes, not say that it meets the logical or uber-liberal criteria of you and Likethebike, both of whom safely speak (unless I stand corrected) as non-parents.


Correct. I am not a parent. But I do have a little sister. It is sometimes upon me to answer her questions about the world, and, I feel, correct some of the simple-minded rhetoric my mom feeds her (though I love my mom dearly).

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:And the notion that you're dealing with a some kind of "hater" is ludicrous. I don't have to flash my liberal credentials, but it's sad the once great philosopy of liberalism (in the USA at least) has come to championing lost, non-populist causes.


When has there ever been true liberalism in the USA? When black people were made to give up their seats on buses? When Elvis was denounced for singing "the devil's music"? When a non-white, non-male was elected president? (Oops - that last one hasn't happened yet).

I admire the USA very, very much. There is an awful lot to like it about it - including its societal structures and democratic values. But, as TS Eliot wrote, "between the idea and the reality falls the shadow". There's still a long way to go.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:It's embarrassing that neither one of you seem to want to even admit that sex change is something that is a new frontier akin to finding out that the sun won't be coming up every day or that oxygen supplies will be going down shortly.


I thought that that notion was implicit in my last post. OK: I admit it. Changing one's sex through medical/surgical procedures is indeed a new frontier. And it's precisely for that reason - and for the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" part of your country's founding document, whose liberal, humanistic tones I agree wholeheartedly with - that there needs to be compassion and not condemnation for these people and the choices they make.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 am

Just pulling a little rank on you, Cryo, since you are still a bit of a "newbie." It might surprise you, but there is some civility among quite a few folks here of different stripes. :lol: Just stay away from the Beatles thread :!:

I like your answers and can respect the spirit of where you are coming from.

One caveat though:

When has there ever been true liberalism in the USA? When black people were made to give up their seats on buses? When Elvis was denounced for singing "the devil's music"? When a non-white, non-male was elected president? (Oops - that last one hasn't happened yet).

I admire the USA very, very much. There is an awful lot to like it about it - including its societal structures and democratic values. But, as TS Eliot wrote, "between the idea and the reality falls the shadow". There's still a long way to go.


I think you have a cartoonish sense of the USA. After all, isn't Europe only now dealing with have a heterogenioius society - never mind the Brits being integral to planting slavery on our soil?

The USA has had a liberal impulse for a long time. We'd never have ended slavery, fought for workers' rights, safety and health regulations, etc. if we didn't have progressive movements and institutions. Our liberal movement goes back quite far but is complicated by having such a diverse group of people to absorb -plus the original sin of slavery. Being a nation of "individualism" is both a hindrance to social cohesion but also a good thing as we make a fetish of one's civil rights sometimes.

I see what's going on in Europe lately to be an answer to some of the "armchair" liberalism that occurred when minorities were absent.

There is a long way to go in the US, but we've really gotten rid of some of the ugiliest racism and bigotry since the '60s. Some say the gay rights movement is part of the quest, and I see that, but also recognize limits, that reasonable people will say no to gay marriage and not be turning around a beating up a gay person. We've never been more tolerant of gay people. It just may be reaching some outer limits of "live and let live."

In fact, I know of no other nation that has as part of its ethos "come one, come all," so I find the notion that the British are more enlightened a bit off. However, there is a lot to admire about Europe.

But social liberalism is not necessarly something we need now. Some say Europe is too liberal socially, with low-birth rates to the point that it'll be Eurabia before you know it.

But anyway, it's always nice to hear other perspectives. But I suggest you read up more on why America is as it is. There's plenty to be proud of here, too. Quite a bit of it will be useful as your nation becomes more than just white people of mostly Anglo stock.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:14 am

edit.
Last edited by Juan Luis on Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:25 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Just pulling a little rank on you, Cryo, since you are still a bit of a "newbie." It might surprise you, but there is some civility among quite a few folks here of different stripes. :lol: Just stay away from the Beatles thread :!:


LOL!

I was looking in that thread and about to make a post. But then I thought: "naaah!". I like apples and oranges too much already.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I like your answers and can respect the spirit of where you are coming from.


Thanks.

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:One caveat though:

When has there ever been true liberalism in the USA? When black people were made to give up their seats on buses? When Elvis was denounced for singing "the devil's music"? When a non-white, non-male was elected president? (Oops - that last one hasn't happened yet).

I admire the USA very, very much. There is an awful lot to like it about it - including its societal structures and democratic values. But, as TS Eliot wrote, "between the idea and the reality falls the shadow". There's still a long way to go.


I think you have a cartoonish sense of the USA. After all, isn't Europe only now dealing with have a heterogenioius society - never mind the Brits being integral to planting slavery on our soil?


Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:In fact, I know of no other nation that has as part of its ethos "come one, come all," so I find the notion that the British are more enlightened a bit off. However, there is a lot to admire about Europe.


This is where you've confused things. I never once said or implied (or intended to imply) that us Brits are more enlightened. But I DID very deliberately stick to referring explicitly to the US since that is where you live, where this case originates and is the democratic nation I admire the most. If there's anything "superior" about Britain then I can't think of it. There are many differences, of course, but not differences in the sense that one country can be quantatively placed above the other in any one area. Though I do, of course, prefer our stable climate, the green countryside and our dry sense of humour. Take that!

As for the rest of your last post: I agree with it. The US has made many strides over the last century. Some European states might have specific advantages over the US, and vice versa, but the US is unique - and so it deserves to be regarded uniquely. I'll continue to take it and its countrymen to task - just as I do for the UK - but that doesn't mean I don't consider it to be the benchmark for democratic states around the world.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:36 am

This is nearly turning into the Frocky Horror Show.

In one corner we had Greg(The Truth) Nolan and in the other corner Frocky(LTB) Balboa.

It's been a good fight but the title goes to Greg(The Truth) Nolan by unanimous decision.

By the way LTB.........when are you gonna post a finished picture of Frocky?

He/she looks like Mrs Doubtfire's ugly sister at the moment.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 8:23 am

Wow........take a day off and look what you miss :lol:

At the risk of re-entering a newly civil fray, I will add this........

N8 is correct........."gender reassignment" is an arrogant and superficial tag which glosses over complexities we are unable to fully comprehend.

Quite simply, the arrogance of the medical profession to assume that cosmetic alterations and hormonal tweaking are going to re-write the informational cache of the DNA molecule is rather funny........and sad, on many levels.

That said, I'm not primarily offended morally by this situation. If this individual worked in my local auto parts outlet, I would have chuckled over the utter ridiculousness of it and said a silent prayer for the poor deluded man........er woman.Never mind.

If someone wants to alter themselves surgically.........hey, if you've got the money and can take the heat, go for it.

My problem, as stated earlier, is the setting. There is an appropriate time and setting for these subjects to be addressed to children, and I'll be damned if some misguided social engineer is going to make that decision for me.

You want to have a say in when where, and whether I address these issues with my kids you better damn well pony up some cash, get elbow deep in dirty diapers, kick in for medical, dental, food, shelter, clothing expenses, sit up with them when they are sick, cry with them when they cry, worry for them when they are out of your sight, and lay awake at night fearing for what they are destined to encounter in a society that has become a free-for-all maelstrom of violence, predatory sexuality of all stripes, and materialistic narcissism.

Until then, the decision of what, when, where, and how I raise these issues is mine alone.

And a final note........please put a lid on the specious supposition that "no one will know" if this person simply keeps quiet about his lifestyle choices.

This incident, even without the publicity, will reverberate through the halls of that school and the streets of that town far longer than the individual in question will be able to avoid achieving room temperature.

Every classroom of children will know the tale before that teacher steps foot into a classroom........not because of the publicity, but because it's human nature to "dish". And dish they will.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:28 am

No one will know if the person and others keep quiet. It's none of their business.

The idea that is thrusting the topic on the children is where I disagree. It's only thrust upon them if someone wants to thrust it upon them. The rumor mill is started by adults.

Scatter your world view is kind of bleak. If the world is a hell hole it didn't just start now though. We've always been this way.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:50 am

likethebike wrote:No one will know if the person and others keep quiet. It's none of their business.

Yeah.......OK. No one will know. We just have to pray that everyone in the town, agree or disagree with this situation, decides to keep quiet. Because we know that when something is "none of their business", people tend to ignore it and refuse to speak or speculate upon it.

Yeah.......THAT'LL happen :lol:


The idea that is thrusting the topic on the children is where I disagree. It's only thrust upon them if someone wants to thrust it upon them. The rumor mill is started by adults.

And fortunately, none of the kids who saw this person as a "male", and who subsequently see her as a "female", will say anything. They are part of the Great Gossip Vacuum that we are praying the adults will engage in (despite the evidence of history, common sense, and human nature).

So far we're lookin' good!!!! :wink:


Scatter your world view is kind of bleak. If the world is a hell hole it didn't just start now though. We've always been this way.

Precisely........we've ALWAYS been this way. Human nature is what it is, period. Your scenario is predicated upon the possibility of human nature being turned upon its head.

What is it with the Liberal mindset that enables so many of its adherents to simply ignore the inevitable??? So many on your side of the aisle have the tendency to see the world as they would LIKE it to be, rather than as it is.

Human nature dictates that this story WILL get out, and that it WILL get out to the kids. That is irrefutable........wishes, hopes, and lollipop dreams aside.


Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:44 am

I don't think it's fair to ask people to live their lives to avoid gossip. If these parents are so concerned they shouldn't spread the story to their kids.

The big difference we have here is this idea that looking at a person who has had a sex change will make a child recoil in confusion and horror. I just don't see it. And you have to admit if you ever came across this situation in your own life it would rank about problem #6987.

Again I stress my view is a human point of view not influenced by any political agenda but by natural compassion and empathy.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:13 am

likethebike wrote:I don't think it's fair to ask people to live their lives to avoid gossip. If these parents are so concerned they shouldn't spread the story to their kids.

It's just as likely that the kids will spread the gossip to their parents. Human nature and all......

The big difference we have here is this idea that looking at a person who has had a sex change will make a child recoil in confusion and horror. I just don't see it. And you have to admit if you ever came across this situation in your own life it would rank about problem #6987.

It wouldn't be a problem for me at all. I would just shrug, pray, and be on my way. But then, I'm 41. My 5 year old is too young to be addressing the issue.

Again I stress my view is a human point of view not influenced by any political agenda but by natural compassion and empathy.

My view is not politically motivated either. And I do feel great compassion for those who live in such torment that their psychic mutilation finally manifests itself in physical mutilation.His physical orientation isn't the cause of his pain........unfortunately, that is a lesson he will learn shortly.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:20 pm

Scatter wrote:N8 is correct........."gender reassignment" is an arrogant and superficial tag which glosses over complexities we are unable to fully comprehend.


Agreed. One cannot simply switch genders through any known surgical procedure(s). But that statement is, in some ways, a semantical deviation from the line of discussion that's been in progress. Of course, on its own terms, it has enormous validity and backs up what myself and Greg have said: changing one's gender, or attempting to change it, is a complex thing with equally complex ramifications. Nevertheless, while a person may not be able to fully switch gender, I do feel it is a procedure or set of procedures that they are entitled to, all else being equal, should they wish it.

Scatter wrote:You want to have a say in when where, and whether I address these issues with my kids you better damn well pony up some cash, get elbow deep in dirty diapers, kick in for medical, dental, food, shelter, clothing expenses, sit up with them when they are sick, cry with them when they cry, worry for them when they are out of your sight, and lay awake at night fearing for what they are destined to encounter in a society that has become a free-for-all maelstrom of violence, predatory sexuality of all stripes, and materialistic narcissism.


A sad --- but true -- assessment.

Current society has numerous problems -- many of which didn't exist at the same level or in the same manner in past generations. There's very little respect and human decency to go around. Has liberalism caused some of this? Undoubtedly.

Scatter wrote:And a final note........please put a lid on the specious supposition that "no one will know" if this person simply keeps quiet about his lifestyle choices.

This incident, even without the publicity, will reverberate through the halls of that school and the streets of that town far longer than the individual in question will be able to avoid achieving room temperature.

Every classroom of children will know the tale before that teacher steps foot into a classroom........not because of the publicity, but because it's human nature to "dish". And dish they will.


Yet more truth you speak, Scatter.

LTB, despite what my initial post suggests, I am more in the middle. There is an issue of pragmatism I was stubbornly avoiding before. I think this person should be free to do as they choose -- but that the realities of life must also dictate strict limits/consequences whenever decisions are taken. And, as far as decisions go, this is extreme by the conventional social standards of current and all pre-existing times.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:22 pm

Cryo, I agree entirely with you that it is the right of this man to get whatever surgical proceedure he wishes.

The morality issues do not really phase me here either.........I just lament that society is being asked more and more to accomodate the fringes and celebrate them.

Be different.......do what is different.......look different........act different......

Just accept the consequences of your decisions without asking me to mitigate them for you.

And the consequences for this chap have only just begun, I'm afraid.

Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:28 pm

Scatter wrote:Be different.......do what is different.......look different........act different......

Just accept the consequences of your decisions without asking me to mitigate them for you.


I see what you mean.

I remember an argument on another board about haircuts, and specifically, skinheads. Some people were arguing that you shouldn't be treated differently for a haircut and argued it was unfair of other people to discriminate; others said that suspicion/discrimination was inevitable and that any indivdidual going for such a cut, regardless of their nature, should be prepared for the consequences.

Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:00 am

I had somewhat hoped to see this thread gone soon enough (it always seemed on the cusp of running off the rails) but I'm pleased we're at a level of respectful give and take as we wind down. I fully concur with Scatter, for the record, and I'm happy to have carried that side of the argument while he was gone.

I wanted only to add I was thinking more about LTB's mention of a kid growing up in Newark and how a lone wolf teacher like McBeth doesn't affect such a kid in dire straights. Actually, going back to my earlier point about politics and strategy (not really addressed, as I recall), my point then was that it seems those who actually do want to address points like America's vast poverty problem (poor schools, high crime, high unemployment, broken families, etc.) seem to inevitably get highjacked by the excesses of cultural liberals - and the often cynical ones wanting to capitalize on this - and why wouldn't they, when its their cultural world that is being challenged, in minor and subtle but often key ways? I don't begrudge the Republicans for pointing out wayward liberalism when they see it. A lot of this opposition is in fact sincere, even if we don't agree.

In my view, the Democrats have made it too easy for the Grand Old Party to say "see: :roll: there they go again, sticking up for criminals, sexual minorities, etc, you name it." That may be noble, but when it becomes the perception that the Democrats are a party of elite social engineering and not one of the common people, it becomes hard to fight back in preserving living standards (affordable housing & health care, a high wage economy, etc.) Part of the problem with getting rid of smoky rooms where men chomping on cigars picked the nominee is that the very democratization of the party process (bringing in minorities, women and a vareity of "special interests" usually liberal) is that the party veers left. There seems to be no mechanism for someone to swing the gavel and say, "no, we're not going to become the party of the marginal."

Quite a bit of my ire (as well as being parental in the manner Scatter speaks of) is my disappointment in how the Democrats have allowed what can safely be considered fringe cultural projects to then become a key part of their agenda - whether they admit it or not. Living in the "Bay State" at the time it became the first U.S. state to endorse so-called "gay marriage," I knew our Senator running against the President would ultimately be sunk by this - and other- associations of "liberalism run amuck." So I would like to see the Democrats control some of the special interest groups that (to my mind) sneer too readily at the conservative / middle of the road social values of citizens who otherwise are open to properly investing in schools, health care, etc - and yes, help that kid in Newark. The Democratic coalition that elected FDR to four terms, elected Truman, JFK, Johnson and others (before self-destructing) was far from perfect, but there did seem to be a more populist strain that has been lost. Some of this never will be recaptured (gay aren't going back into the closet, for one nor women sticking to the kitchen only) but on a few issues, it seems like modern Dems can't help putting themselves at odds with would-be allies. It's always a delicate balance, to be sure.


As a final side note, Cryo, I didn't mean to make it a US vs. UK thing in my reply (shades of that Elvis v. Beatles silliness) but I do sometimes think that damned ocean separates my fellow citizens from actually has been accomplished by our allies. That and our chest-beating might be tampered down. (That Andrew Sullivan column I posted is an example of the New Humility among former saber-rattlers...)

I haven't had the pleasure of visiting the one-time "Mother Country" itself (but having been to Europe), I think I might actually prefer your "stable climate, the green countryside and our dry sense of humour."

Either that, I have been watching too much of Emma Peel in recent years. :oops: 8)

Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:19 am

Those ideas should be sneered at. It's not your or anyone else's business how a person lives their individual lives. An issue like this, which really is a one in a ten million situation is the usual right wing smoke screen for their bigger agendas in this case homophobia. Who made these people God to approve or disapprove of a lifestyle that has no bearing on their own? Nobody's putting a camera in their bedrooms. Again it's this bullying aspect of the culture that demands total conformity and it's not all that different than the nut wing of the Muslim community only in its intensity. These people have different tastes and preferences than you live with it. And don't go on about gay pride parades etc. rubbing it in your face. Those events would disappear if all the sneering and snickering and belittling went away. The phrase "gay" is still a generic insult among teenagers. And you wonder why they have to have gay pride parades.

I think in many ways for a significant segment of the populations gays have just replaced blacks as the enemy.

And in a country where the system has been so perverted that welfare pays more than a full-time job (not a lot in either circumstance), guns are more easier available than a major appliance, independent business has been killed by monster corporations, it seems perverse to lay all the ills of society at liberalism's door.

And when remember when comparing Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly. That this incident, one in ten million, is emblematic of O'Reilly's tendency to bash down. Remember Katrina. While the rest of the world was wondering where Bush, Chartoff, Nagin and everyone else was O'Reilly was busy dumping on the victims. Stewart's targets are almost always people in power. There's a big difference.

Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:45 am

likethebike wrote:Those ideas should be sneered at. It's not your or anyone else's business how a person lives their individual lives.

Says who? Become a kindergarten teacher and it expect it become one.

An issue like this, which really is a one in a ten million situation is the usual right wing smoke screen for their bigger agendas in this case homophobia.

Again, the 'phobic" word is inaccurate. I'd say its disapproval, particularly sex-changes.

Who made these people God to approve or disapprove of a lifestyle that has no bearing on their own?

It strikes at the core of traditional morality, like it or not.

Nobody's putting a camera in their bedrooms. Again it's this bullying aspect of the culture that demands total conformity and it's not all that different than the nut wing of the Muslim community only in its intensity.

A poor comparison. We are a pretty free society.

These people have different tastes and preferences than you live with it. And don't go on about gay pride parades etc. rubbing it in your face. Those events would disappear if all the sneering and snickering and belittling went away. The phrase "gay" is still a generic insult among teenagers. And you wonder why they have to have gay pride parades.

I'm not anti-gay and we probably have more work to do in that area.
But when one is different, maybe that person ('you') has to live with it.



I think in many ways for a significant segment of the populations gays have just replaced blacks as the enemy.

Enemy? Gays are all over network TV. It's not anywhere near Jim Crow- and many Blacks are insulted by such comparisons.

And in a country where the system has been so perverted that welfare pays more than a full-time job (not a lot in either circumstance), guns are more easier available than a major appliance, independent business has been killed by monster corporations, it seems perverse to lay all the ills of society at liberalism's door.

Politics is a coalition game. Don't put all eggs in a losing basket.

And when remember when comparing Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly. That this incident, one in ten million, is emblematic of O'Reilly's tendency to bash down. Remember Katrina. While the rest of the world was wondering where Bush, Chartoff, Nagin and everyone else was O'Reilly was busy dumping on the victims. Stewart's targets are almost always people in power. There's a big difference.


That's a reason I'm still a liberal of sorts when it comes to power and money. This is why Stewart is to be commended. O'Reilly is blind to that.

.

Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:04 am

Hey Greg

Your signature pictures are to large(wide). Whenever I read a post that you have posted I cannot fit all of the text into one screen without scrokking over.

Sun Mar 12, 2006 3:23 pm

These sex change freaks just give me the creeps.....the idea of these people teaching my children horrifies me.....If LTB and his mob get their way it'll soon be ok for freaks like this disgusting excuse for a man (below) to teach our children too>

Image


The thought of it just makes me sick to my stomach.

BUT.....carry on your crusade LTB.....because you won't get your way and common sense will- in the end, prevail.

Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:23 am

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.

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.

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 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?

"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.

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. 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. I've met a lot of these kids in my day and the parents and preachers scare the tar out of them. It seems an unhealthy way to raise a kid to me. I know at least one kid raised in such an environment that grew up to be an honest to gosh criminal involved in drugs, gun running, counterfeiting. But you don't see people running going take kids from hardcore religious fanatics do you? It's not up to me to disapprove and there may very well be many kids who grow up in the same environment and turn out healthy.

Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:54 am

likethebike wrote: It's really about time we start calling a spade a spade here.


Dang it LTB! You're supposed to be the PC liberal here. The proper term is African-American.


likethebike wrote: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.


Actually Bike, O'Reilly is pretty middle-of-the-road regarding gays.

likethebike wrote: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.


So what you're saying is we need to get straight about gays? :lol:

likethebike wrote: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. I've met a lot of these kids in my day and the parents and preachers scare the tar out of them. It seems an unhealthy way to raise a kid to me. I know at least one kid raised in such an environment that grew up to be an honest to gosh criminal involved in drugs, gun running, counterfeiting. But you don't see people running going take kids from hardcore religious fanatics do you? It's not up to me to disapprove and there may very well be many kids who grow up in the same environment and turn out healthy.


The Jesus or hell crowd really irritate me. If you've got to threaten or scare people into believing then something is wrong. Jesus didn't do it. He preached a gospel of love, repentance, and forgiveness. He brought this message right to the people - including those who were considered the dregs of society in His day. His message was not "believe - or else!"