Hypocrite? Homophobe?

[Gryffindorian]

I like the artwork. Shame on the people who complained and had it removed from FB.

On a related note, Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao said people in gay relationships are worse than animals. He later issued an apology. Bastard. He can hardly speak two coherent words in Tagalog or English. It makes me ashamed to be the same ethnicity as he.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

Mr. Pacquiao needs to think about what he says. How many people would say humans are worse than animals because we glory in sports where men like him get their brains turned to jelly? We also kill for reasons like "he looked at me funny" or "she stole my iPhone" or "that kid was in my way of a great deal at the big box store." Having a chosen mate that we think about carefully before we engage, be that person the same gender or a different gender, makes us better than animals.

 

[{ Emilia }]

@Pubert
Just like @Locutus of Bored I'd really love to have an answer to this.

Do you also think that a state official should be allowed to refuse dealing with black people who come to his or her office?

See the issue? The state should not and cannot discriminate.
To give you another example: I find many conservatives truly disgusting in their hateful opinions. So I have serious moral objections against these people, their opinions and lifestyles.
Yet I would never expect state officials to be allowed to not serve them for these moral reasons.

 

[TRON JA307020]

But the justice of the peace still has to do his/her job. And you'll note that they are there to serve those who may not have religious inclinations. These justices should be neutral on the job, not use their job as a bully pulpit.
The same is true of other government officials. They're there to serve everyone. Would you particularly like it if a judge that was Muslim or Jewish or of one denomination that regards all others as Hell-bound refused to marry people unless they toed the line of his/her beliefs?

Agreed.

 

[Timewalker]

While I really don't care about gay marriage one way or the other I think that it would be wrong to force people that are religious to do the ceremony even if they work for the state. I also think its fine if people are against it if their personal faith doesn't allow it. They aren't assholes they just have a different belief system and I can respect that.

If they work for the state (or whichever level of government), they are obligated to serve ALL the people who have the legal right to whatever services they perform.

That includes performing marriage ceremonies and providing other services associated with them (ie. issuing licenses).

In other areas, it also includes teachers not shaming kids for opting out of school prayers, and city clerks not being disrespectful to people who refuse to swear on a bible.

And later on this year, in Canada, it will involve doctors not refusing to refer patients to other doctors if they themselves opt out of involvement in doctor-assisted death cases for patients who have a terminal illness and want to die on their own terms.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I like the artwork. Shame on the people who complained and had it removed from FB.

On a related note, Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao said people in gay relationships are worse than animals. He later issued an apology. Bastard. He can hardly speak two coherent words in Tagalog or English. It makes me ashamed to be the same ethnicity as he.

As a German, I feel I have to give you this advise: Don't go down that road.

That said, Pacquiao can put his remark where he probably thinks nothing should go in.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

^His ear?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

^ I wouldn't know whether he has ears. Did he ever fight Mike Tyson?

 

[Miss Chicken]

I really cannot understand how bigotry to gays can exist in here and now.

40 years ago I was working in a nursing home in which there were shared rooms for the clients. Some rooms had 2 woman sharing, other four, and the two most dependent wards had 6.

2 of the old ladies who shared a room were caught' in a single bed together. The girl who walked in on them was called Ingrid and the bitch couldn't run any quicker than she did to inform the matron of the 'bad behaviour'. The two old dears were separated and one was moved downstairs so it was hard for them to see each other. On top of that their families were informed of the reason for the move.

I was so angry over the whole thing. If it was me who had walked in on them I would have walked straight back out and not mentioned it to anyone.

I remember feeling guilty for not standing up for the old ladies.

About three weeks later a had an argument with Ingrid and I was fired because of that.

 

[hux]

Sounds like the begginings of a screenplay to me.

Love, oppression, gay rights, the rights of the elderly, a young girl's dismissal because she stood up to the system. You name it.

You need to start writing it.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I really cannot understand how bigotry to gays can exist in here and now.

It's religion convincing a lot of people that they're superior to others and that none of their experiences or thoughts are valid or worthwhile because the religious person "knows" they're right. That's why its so easy for them to dismiss what other people say they feel, It's nothing but ignorance and arrogance pretending to be humble belief.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I remember feeling guilty for not standing up for the old ladies.

You probably just would have been assumed to be Gay and fired sooner. Back in the 70s, whenever I would stand up for Gay Rights, my family would 'accuse' me of being 'one of them.' I never argued, since I didn't think it was anything to be ashamed of, and that really freaked them out.

 

[publiusr]

It's a complex issue.

A lot of folks worry about the loss of the traditional family, and can only express concern through religion..

I would submit that what we see on the program MODERN FAMILY isn't modern at all--but actually a return to the extended family. How often to people in suburbia really talk to each other? In reality--they don't. I think it was the nuclear family that may have hurt us--with Mr. Upward Lee Mobile (and his wife Trendy--and their 2.5 children Millicent, John-John and Rover) being a model. Now gay folks can marry and be part of soul-less suburbia like anyone else..

My parents were married for decades--and with divorces and all--there is this notion that something has been lost.

In Modern Family--you have the maximum amount of diversity--gay, straight, old, young--but most importantly--they all have a role--and they all talk to each other--a village.

Sounds like the beginings of a screenplay to me. You need to start writing it.

I've often wanted to write a debate, where a socially conservative--(but otherwise liberal) person who tires of the Mammon-worshiping Right points the way back and can make a better argument over concerns than Leviticus baiting.

"Imagine I owned an aerospace company--and was making a horrifying new weapon. Rachel Maddow wants to work as an engineer in this company. I know women aren't the warmongers that men are--so I transfer her to the civilian side--and actually pay her more--I give her not a glass ceiling--but a glass wonkavator. She gets more money showing off my new triple decker airliner--than the engineers who have been with the company who stay in cubicles with kids in legal five floors up in rooms with a view."

"Rachel lives a Carrie Bradshaw life--but she hears the still small voice of Betty Friedan or Bella Abzug warn her that this isn't what Feminism is. It is about not being as bad an off-shorer and outsourcer as men--but in having a uniquely female world-view. She returns to the old job--and has the new weapon stopped."

"Now, if we acknowledge the uniquely female aspects, and we also acknowledge the worth of fathers (SCI AM advertised a book to that effect in real life) then we are left with a question:
If we want gender roles equally represented in the workplace--cannot one make a totally secular wisdom of the tribe argument that children also need both gender diversity in their homes....i.e. Straight Marriage?"

If someone came at this from the Left--the position seems a bit more powerful.

But here would be a response.

"So you would take away children from a father who lost a mother--so to break up his all-male household now then? It took you five minutes to make a bad argument--but me only a moment to make a good one."

Then what this other character does is acknowledge the concerns of the social conservative--without making that person a Frank Burns stereotype.

This second person then talks about the need for us all to talk to each other more.

This gets around name calling--no "bible-thumping redneck" bashing or Leviticus baiting.

Everyone comes off looking respectable.

The argument then turns--with it being acknowledged that it is the nuclear family and its isolation that can be troublesome. If the mother-in-law stays too long--put here in the home. If the teen lingers--put him in the military.

It is when we all have roles--that you have peace.

So you see--MODERN FAMILY enjoys the same or more diversity as The Waltons--not less.

That's how you make your points.

 

[Awesome Possum]

There were two old ladies who lived together on The Waltons. They claimed to be sisters, but it was a different time back then and they don't look that similar.

 

[Gov Kodos]

It's a complex issue.

A lot of folks worry about the loss of the traditional family, and can only express concern through religion..

I would submit that what we see on the program MODERN FAMILY isn't modern at all--but actually a return to the extended family. How often to people in suburbia really talk to each other? In reality--they don't. I think it was the nuclear family that may have hurt us--with Mr. Upward Lee Mobile (and his wife Trendy--and their 2.5 children Millicent, John-John and Rover) being a model.

While the nuclear family is recent, the compulsion to mind other people's business precedes it considerably. And, honestly, it's not any more complex than that. There's never been a shortage of community busybodies and hypocrites to support them all much bemoaned even long before Hawthorne wrote 'The Scarlet Letter'

 

[publiusr]

That's true. Then too, one of the old mores was against gossip--but that's what we as primates do. There is this idea that everyone who lived a long time ago didn't have good sense. And while we are certainly more open to things--to think that no-one then had good sense...

The past vs the future---that's what arguments about mores and norms really get down to.

I remember a woman from C-SPAN some years ago who wrote about what an assasination of W Bush would entail.

But a side talk is what I remember. She talked about a Native American Nation that--in her words--loved mediocrity. If you loved something too much--you were expected to give it up. Not long ago--the character on THE WALKING DEAD known as The Governor called teens and even tweens "men and women" and said something to the effect that attempts to infantilize youngsters with our Louis Carrol approach was un-healthy. It turns out that this native american group would have elders be the first to indroduce physical relationships with youngsters in blom. What you did not want to do was let inexperienced youth go off by themselves--and add to the population when things were hand-to-mouth.

This would be shocking to us today--even though young marriage may have given us the feminist movement. Many farmers daughters were encouraged to marry Civil War vets--in that both spouses and their children were to get benefits.

This actually still goes on last I heard: http://time.com/95195/civil-war-pensioner/

Maybe this gave us the old trope of a young heroine escaping an evil old groom for a young prince who needed no job, or maybe the old idea of the world's oldest Civil war widow.

It all sounds awful--and yet--the men did the women the very great favor of dying--and women, now more independant, could buy those nice clothes and phone booth like electric cars we remember from the Suffragette movement.

Go figure.

I sometimes wonder if our Randian, me-obsessed take on things today might be the most cruel humanity has ever been. There are more folks behind bars now than ever on plantations--more slaves across the world than ever.

We just don't see them now.

I have often had a chilling thought. It may be as much a fools errand to change some people's bigotry than it is for bigots to change another persons sexual preference. If a female transitions to male--there seems to be less resistance. Male to female transitions may be harder. I suspect a kind of uncanny valley type reaction where our lizard brain says--predator in disguise.

Poor Roddenberry. He had a tougher job fighting evolution than even he could ever know.

In the past, if one wanted to marry only within one's race--that was fine. Within one's gender? No.

Now it seems to have flipped. The Mores flip around--but we will always be fighting over this that or the other--who can do what to whom. Things in the DSM can be argued to be part of diversity not pathology.

I'm a bit of a slob with OCD. I find I have to read words on a page with just the right inflection. It doesn't make me sick--just a perfectionist.

IDIC

 

[Gov Kodos]

That's true. Then too, one of the old mores was against gossip--but that's what we as primates do. There is this idea that everyone who lived a long time ago didn't have good sense. And while we are certainly more open to things--to think that no-one then had good sense...

The past vs the future---that's what arguments about mores and norms really get down to.

For a lot of history it was assumed ancestors were a source of wisdom. Depending on the culture, all you are is owed to them. In a sense, your existence is on loan from the ancestors past and your duty is to live up to their expectations. That's culture and has little to do with being primates. That smacks of biology is destiny or some such rot which is often a gross simplification of some behavior in nature then used to justify some awful behavior in people whether its racism, sexism, or homophobia or some other damned thing.

I remember a woman from C-SPAN some years ago who wrote about what an assasination of W Bush would entail.

But a side talk is what I remember. She talked about a Native American Nation that--in her words--loved mediocrity. If you loved something too much--you were expected to give it up. Not long ago--the character on THE WALKING DEAD known as The Governor called teens and even tweens "men and women" and said something to the effect that attempts to infantilize youngsters with our Louis Carrol approach was un-healthy. It turns out that this native american group would have elders be the first to indroduce physical relationships with youngsters in blom. What you did not want to do was let inexperienced youth go off by themselves--and add to the population when things were hand-to-mouth.

This is a blithe statement made of second hand assertion of dubious authenticity using half-baked TV mysticism and very poor logic.

This would be shocking to us today--even though young marriage may have given us the feminist movement. Many farmers daughters were encouraged to marry Civil War vets--in that both spouses and their children were to get benefits.

This actually still goes on last I heard: http://time.com/95195/civil-war-pensioner/

Maybe this gave us the old trope of a young heroine escaping an evil old groom for a young prince who needed no job, or maybe the old idea of the world's oldest Civil war widow.

Young marriage, especially young girls to older men has been the norm thanks to societies by and large being patriarchal and taking women to be property rather than free and equal human beings. Thank Wollstonecraft and many others feminist thought has old roots.

It all sounds awful--and yet--the men did the women the very great favor of dying--and women, now more independant, could buy those nice clothes and phone booth like electric cars we remember from the Suffragette movement.

Go figure.

Schopenhauer said pretty much the same. He was quite the misogynist about women. Probably got shot down more than once in some salon or other such place.

I sometimes wonder if our Randian, me-obsessed take on things today might be the most cruel humanity has ever been. There are more folks behind bars now than ever on plantations--more slaves across the world than ever.

We just don't see them now.

Ayn Rand? Oy veh, no, just no. Cruelty today, certainly Europe and North America in no way comes close to what either approached in the past. No redoes on the end of the Punic Wars, no Thirty Years Wars making sure folks were the right kind of Christian, no Crusades butchering everyone in sight, no Trail of Tears Marches. And the prison population in the US has more to do with the moral hypocrisy the country has about drugs and its ill will toward blacks and the poor in general than anything else. Again, moralizing busybodies minding other people's business.

I have often had a chilling thought. It may be as much a fools errand to change some people's bigotry than it is for bigots to change another persons sexual preference. If a female transitions to male--there seems to be less resistance. Male to female transitions may be harder. I suspect a kind of uncanny valley type reaction where our lizard brain says--predator in disguise.

Society has improved over the past. Civil rights have expanded, women enjoy greater social mobility, and now LGBT folks are starting to make real progress toward enjoying freedoms heterosexuals take for granted. The ones putting up a stink, in the US at any rate, tend to be stodgy old white folk who don't want to see change.

Poor Roddenberry. He had a tougher job fighting evolution than even he could ever know.

He was mostly fighting to get mistresses on the casting couch.

In the past, if one wanted to marry only within one's race--that was fine. Within one's gender? No.

Now it seems to have flipped. The Mores flip around--but we will always be fighting over this that or the other--who can do what to whom. Things in the DSM can be argued to be part of diversity not pathology.

This is just a mess. Yes, times and culture change, that isn't reason or justification to sit back and let the bigots be comfortable in their abusing folks.

I'm a bit of a slob with OCD. I find I have to read words on a page with just the right inflection. It doesn't make me sick--just a perfectionist.

IDIC

You do put a lot of ideas down.

 

[publiusr]

You do put a lot of ideas down.

That's the Fred Friendly in me. I enjoy a good debate. If i'm in a room with a lot of folks one one side of things, sometimes I'll take the other side.

Young marriage, especially young girls to older men has been the norm thanks to societies by and large being patriarchal and taking women to be property rather than free and equal human beings

It can certainly be that--but I was watching Lisa Ling and she had a different feel towards the end of her program. Unlike a lot of younger guys --I and a lot off older folks are content with being a homebody--as opposed to going out drinking.

Now we have a real mess of a situation with Title IX suit in Tennessee. Some folks have impugned one girl who made an accusation against Peyton Manning. There is the right of the accused as well--as with the Duke Lacrosse situation and the Rolling Stone. retraction.

And yet we all know that a lot of bad behavior goes on with sports obseessed guys who have never been told no--but do they deserve a benefit of a doubt--in that all the talk of refugees as rapists is overblown?

With Cosby, I almost wish he had died before all the ugliness came out. And then I think about all the jokes both male and female comedians have made about beer goggles and waking up with strangers. Since alcohol itself is a drug--the very act of buying someone a drink might be considered an assault--and in some cases is.

I see pro-sex feminists like Camille Paglia who does make some good arguements.

Alison Bass, once claimed sex-trafficing was "overblown." That I don't believe for a minute.