Let me tell you a little bit about my brother. He has the brains, while I'm just another pretty face. He can take a car apart and put it back together, while I still haven't figured out how to pop the hood. He goes to church twice a week, while I don't go at all, figuring he has me covered. His religious convictions tell him that same sex relationships are immoral, while I have no convictions at all and don't mind if three guys and one parakeet want to go to space mountain. I know my brother, who lives in Bethlehem, would be opposed to Mayoral candidate Willie Reynolds' stands on marriage equality and same sex benefits. I have reservations myself, although for different reasons. At a news conference last week that I unfortunately missed, Willie Reynolds chose to make "equal rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters" a major theme of his campaign. He pledged that, as Mayor, he would insist on "diversity training for City employees, particularly our public safety personnel." Same sex domestic partners "would be provided with the same health care benefits as all other city employees." Finally, he vowed he would perform no marriages at all until he could do so for same sex as well as heterosexual couples.
Although Willie's stand should just about lock up the gay vote (and they contribute), this is not exactly what I would call a high priority in a City afflicted by a revenue-sucking pension crisis. In fact, as gay employees add their domestic partners for health benefits and pensions, this can only make that problem worse. It will cost the City money at a time when it should be trying to trim costs.
If Willie had proposed benefits for prospective city workers in same sex relationships, this pill would be easier (and cheaper) to swallow. Those pension agreements are much more reasonable, thanks to negotiations by the Callahan administration. But under Willie's plan, he will add significantly to the City's pension crisis.
I could understand diversity training, so long as it can be done at no municipal expense. But why did Willie add that public safety personnel need it more than most? I would think police officers and firefighters, who see same sex unions night and day, could probably give Willie some diversity training.
Another point, and I one I find unnecessarily divisive, is Willie's pledge to refuse to perform any marriages at all until he can marry same sex couples. That is insulting to numerous innocent heterosexual couples who have nothing to do with the state's marriage laws. It is also insulting to many people like my brother, who for religious reasons, are offended by same sex couples. Who's to say my brother is wrong? Willie Reynolds? LGBT activist Adrian Shanker?
Worst of all is that, in the name of political correctness, Willie is diminishing the sanctity of the special relationship between man and woman. That is the only relationship that can actually produce new life. It deserves a special place and name for that if for no other reason. No same sex couple can produce children. To call their union a marriage diminishes the miracle of new life that is often produced by a real marriage. My objection here is mostly definitional. I would agree that same sex partners should have the same rights (and obligations) as heterosexual couples, but the union of man and woman deserves its own special word in our lexicon.
Willie is a progressive candidate with many good ideas, including district seats on City Council. Same sex couples certainly should have the same rights and protections as everyone else. But in a City with many other real problems, this should be a back burner item that needs to be approached with a little more sensitivity than Willie has displayed. You can't just force people to accept gay rights. You need to persuade them. And that takes time, not mandatory diversity training for cops.
I know I have several gay readers. Please tell me if you thing I'm wrong. It would not be the first time.
Gayness aside, having district seats is not a good idea and I believe Bob answered that well the other night at the debate. It would pit a us versus them neighborhood, it's not broken so don't try to fix it...
ReplyDeleteBob had a good answer, but I like Willie's idea.
ReplyDeleteIt is broken. Your majority is white middle class. no reps from the southside. I expect that you are scared of the southside having a voice, southside/northside - it's bethlum.
ReplyDeleteif willie gets all his gay friends equal rights will he give the straight partners the same?
BO is right. adding costs is not a winning platform.
having said that I predict that booby d wins but wee willie is the less of the 2 evils
bethlums loses either way
We already lost so much with Johnny Callahan. Willie or Donchez can be no worse.
ReplyDeleteWhat Willie is doing is the right thing. But from a political stand-point, it smacks a little bit of desperation. Kind of a hail mary.
ReplyDeleteNonetheless I applaud him
Reynolds is going too far. Many Libertarians who don't want the government involved in theses issues still think homosexuality is a disgusting predilection practiced by the nihilistic and mentally unstable. Regardless, it's not the government's business to tell those who would make love to the body's exit point (hetero or homo) how disgusting they may be. Homos are sick and twisted. But they deserve rights like the rest of the sick and twisted.
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteIf the Inuit can come up with 50 different words to describe snow we should be able to come up with a few to describe relationships. I'm in favor of unions with all the rights and benefits hetero couple have. However, let's call those unions something other than marriage.
Did you ever hear of the term "he's a walking rectum"? Well that comes from babies being born from the wrong canal. These people even smell a little different. There noses are shaped differently because of the tight squeeze. I look at our elected leaders to see how their noses are shaped. Willies is quite different the normal nose. I think he is a walking rectum on this issue.
ReplyDeleteIn defining marriage you refer to its intent is to produce new life, and, lacking that, same sex marriage does not fit the definition. Balderdash. How about a 60 yr old geezer marrying his 59 yr old soulmate ? Think about it BO, call your bro and then get back to us. Thanks for your blog.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe hidden problem with gay marriage is that it will make all clergy open to discrimination law suits. If a minister (o Chaplain) refuses to perform such a marriage, they will be open to the law suit. I for one beleive that gays forcing religious clergy to disobey their beleifs is
impingiing on the clergy's 1st amendment rights. If you look at the records, it is getting very difficult to get Catholic Chaplains these days for just this reason
I think Willie will make a fine mayor, but I do disagree on the marriage issue. I too think marriage is between a man and a woman. I know the new generation sees things in a different light. I do appreciate him saying what he believes. He still has my vote, because he just doesn't sit back like Bob who does nothing. Mr. Donchez is really a republican hiding behind a democrat. Look at his records. What has he alone brought to the table of Bethlehem.
ReplyDeleterdcaser and7:46,
ReplyDeleteactually, he has been part of the problem for 17 years
Two things. I am supportive of districts in Lower Macungie Township. We are a large township. At 24 square miles and up and over 31,000 residents we are larger then Easton. All 5 commissioners live in subdivisions within about a square mile of each other.
ReplyDeleteThe focus on gay rights for a Bethlehem Mayoral candidate is no different then Julian Stolz running for Emmaus Mayor to protect Americas gun rights.
They are both taking the spotlight off of important local issues with a focus on mostly irrelevant national issues.
Marriage used to be that special heterosexual relationship that usually resulted in children. It was given societal and legal protection for the sake of children.
ReplyDeleteNow, birth control permits more childless marriages, and babies can be easily produced without heterosexual copulation. Serial marrying heterosexuals made a joke of marriage a long time ago. Homosexuals are either sincerely late to a table that's been largely abandoned, or they simply want to annoy conservative heteros by forcing them to accept what they consider sinful and disgusting. I suspect a bit of both motivations. Marriage died a long time before homosexuals showed demanded the right to make it a farce.
Bernie, human rights cannot be denied because they "raise costs". We don't put a price on human rights.
ReplyDeleteNor can they be denied because it "forces" people to accept the denied group: didn't we force racists in the South in 1964 to allow African-Americans the right to vote?
Nor can they be denied because some believe a group is "sinful". Do we deny human rights to to adulterers because that's "sinful"?
Human rights aren't negotiable and they don't depend on majority vote: see: Declaration of Independence, second sentence.
First, Reynolds is not making this a focus of his campaign. He is focusing on keeping Bethlehem's neighborhoods strong, and continuing moving Bethlehem forward.
ReplyDeleteSecond, this became news because Reynolds was endorsed by Equality PA and at the news conference for the endorsement, made some statements in support of GLBT issues.
Reynolds is the true Democrat running in the race. Donchez is a middle of the road Democrat in name only, much like DiGiacinto, Schweder and Leeson. If you looked at his "fiscal responsibility" mailer without seeing a name on it, you would think Pat Toomey wrote it.
Remus,
ReplyDeleteWhat do non white's bring to the table that is different than the white middle class you speak of?
They are free to run for office but choose not to.
Bethlehem population is 51 - 49 female, 76% white, 24% hispanic, 7% black and 3% asian. Has that ever been represented on council? No it has not and never will be, by choice!
Bernie:
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a minor problem with Willie's idea. Until gay marriage is legalized in Pennsylvania, same-sex couples do not have anymore protection than unmarried heterosexual couples. So, if I am a live-in partner to a worker in the City of Bethlehem, I want to have access to the same rights and benefits afforded to the same-sex couple. As more and more of us live together without the legal fetters of marriage (because of economics, convenience, or love), you can see where this would lead to a disaster of proportions with more and more partners (and perhaps even their children) getting access to medical insurance, pensions, and other benefits. How would we pay for all of this down the road, when we can't even pay for this now?
Sufficed to say, I believe that the statistics will show there are many, many more heterosexual couples living together who would be City employees than homosexual couples so I don't see same-sex partners necessarily being a problem with benefits and the like. But it opens the door for a host of other non-traditional families gaining access to publicly funded benefits that, coupled with the rising costs of Obamacare and the resulting rise in medical costs across the board to deal with socialized medicine, a host of municipalities will suffer and face the same fate as municipalities in California that are forced to declare bankruptcy in order to deal with the pension liabilities.
To answer Don Miles (whom I like and respect), while marrying someone of whatever sex could be declared a "human right," it certainly isn't a human right for society to pay for the partner (same sex or otherwise) of a municipal employee's benefits. I have a right to enjoy my life, liberty and property too. I have my own insurance and benefits and things to consider for my children.
So, why not require the municipal employees to pay for spousal/partner and children health insurance benefits like most private sector companies require? If you have a pension or life insurance through the municipal plan, give it to whomever you desire to benefit from it. But in terms of insurance, put these dependents back into the marketplace.
" I'm in favor of unions with all the rights and benefits hetero couple have. However, let's call those unions something other than marriage."
ReplyDeleteBingo
"First, Reynolds is not making this a focus of his campaign. He is focusing on keeping Bethlehem's neighborhoods strong, and continuing moving Bethlehem forward."
ReplyDeleteWillie has conducted two press conferences since announcing. This is one of them. I think it is safe to say there is a LGBT emphasis.
"Willie has conducted two press conferences since announcing."
ReplyDeleteActually this was his 4th press conference.
Judging by that diatribe, you obviously don't understand the issue.
ReplyDelete" I'm in favor of unions with all the rights and benefits hetero couple have. However, let's call those unions something other than marriage."
ReplyDeleteThis desire to further suppress equal rights for gays is over. The arguments have been heard and denied. Calling it something "different" would not be equal rights.
I'm not calling it something different. It is something different. You cannot equate them. It is only the union of man and woman that leads to new life, and that deserves its own name and own recognition, if nothing more.
ReplyDelete"Actually this was his 4th press conference."
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected. But one out of 4 to deal with LGBT rights indicates it is a major theme in a city with bigger problems.
"Judging by that diatribe, you obviously don't understand the issue."
ReplyDeleteObviously. I'm willing to be enlightened. But I am not going to take a position just bc it is the correct thing to do.
When babies can be conceived rectally or through female-to-female sex, we shall call homosexual unions marriage. Calling red blue doesn't make red blue. Both are lovely colors. Both are most assuredly different. Let's have civil unions and eliminate any tax benefits to cohabitants of any sexual persuasion. Heterosexual shacker-uppers using reliable birth control have civil rights, too.
ReplyDeleteI think Willie will make a fine mayor, but I do disagree on the marriage issue. I too think marriage is between a man and a woman. I know the new generation sees things in a different light. I do appreciate him saying what he believe"
ReplyDeleteMaybe we are just too damn old, eh? Like you, I just don't consider a same sex union "equal" to the union between a man and woman. I believe the word "marriage" should be reserved to that special union. I believe that people in same sex unions should be afforded the same rights. Benefits at the City, in my view, should be phased in. And the diversity training with an emphasis on police officers and firemen in my view is insulting to them.
don't need no stinking diversity training. I already hate everybody.
ReplyDeletewho cares if you call it marriage or something else? That's not important... being viewed equally in the eyes of the government is whats important.
ReplyDeleteAs a heterosexual male I would not deny a gay couple the same protections under the law. The problem I have - and I think most heterosexuals have - is the use of the word, "marriage" to describe a gay couples bond. Gays would get a lot more acceptance from the heterosexual majority if they didn't insist on it being described as a marriage. Call it a union, bonding, or anything else other than marriage and there would be far less resistance. I don't care if two bros bend each other over, or if two gals eat carpet all day, but a marriage is between a man and a woman.
ReplyDeleteStraight reader here chiming in to tell you I think you're wrong.
ReplyDeleteEquality is equality and we know that separate but equal is a doctrine from another, more shameful time (not to mention that we don't even have separate but equal now).
Do I think that the Mayor of Bethlehem will be the American leader on this issue? No. But I think Civil Rights changes don't have to come top-down, and there's no harm in leading from the front on an issue that affects many people in Bethlehem, both gay and straight.
Maybe this isn't a deciding issue for most voters, and maybe people like yourself or your brother who oppose gay rights will vote another way because of it, but I think its off point to criticize a candidate for addressing an issue in the campaign - better to talk more policy than less.
Then we should call a childless union between heterosexuals something else, too, no matter what the reason: infertility, choice, age, etc. That would be discrimination, right? Calling a marriage between two gay people something else is, in itself, discrimination. Wake up people! Just because two guys or two girls choose to be married, that has nothing to do with my marriage to another heterosexual and our children. Who others choose to love and what they call it is none of my, or anyone else's, business.
ReplyDeleteCall it whatever you want. It will never be marriage - a mocking facsimile, perhaps, but not marriage. Be serious.
ReplyDeleteAnother indication of how low you will go to gin up readership.
ReplyDeleteSad.
Serial marriers like Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump are a mocking facsimile and should not be allowed to be called marriage at all but we allow it because they are straight. That is ridiculous but it doesn't affect my marriage at all, so it's not my business. These are basic human rights and should not be debated! And I am completely serious. This is 2013. Get a hobby!
ReplyDelete@ 8:56
ReplyDeleteWhat twisted piece of logic!
Get a grip my friend.
856 is twisted. The American Academy if Pediatrics supports legalization of gay marriage officially for its effect on the children im those marriages. Single parents who adopt are denying children love then as well then by your logic, right? As are parents who can not conceive and chose to adopt and give a child a home? Children who learn love know how to give it and receive it and children who learn hate learn how to give it and receive it as we'll. I am guessing your children unfortunately know hate as well.
ReplyDeleteCapri, I do not oppose gay rights, although my brother does think homosexuality is immoral. My chief objection is the use of the word "marriage" to describe same sex unions. I also don't like the notion of a mayor who refuses to perform any marriages at all. Finally, the "diversity training" by the thought police, who will probably be paid.
ReplyDeleteI should add that I have come to learn that my pension argument is flawed. I will address and correct my mistake tomorrow or Friday.
This might be one of those issues where older folks like me have more problems than younger folks like you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDonald, I heard from another gay friend and will consider what he says. I did have my pension argument wrong.
ReplyDeleteI removed my previous comment due to spelling and grammar error -
ReplyDeleteWas this a serious entry? It reads like you being sarcastic and or mocking. I am not quite sure how to respond until I know whether you are serious or not.
Donald, If you have to ask me whether this is a serious entry, I know I'm in trouble. I thought about this matter for several days before writing this post. It could be that my Catholic is showing.
ReplyDeleteI have since spoken to a gay friend (or perhaps former friend) who set e straight concerning my pension argument. I had that wrong, and will be correcting it.
In my world, words have meaning. A marriage to me has always meant the union of man and woman, the only union that can produce children. In the course of my discussion, I was told that same sex couples have children, too, though it seemed contrived. I was also reminded that parents have adopted children and that now is no problem, although there once was a stigma associated with it.
Suffice it to say that I need to think about this a bit more, and I promise you that I will.
I do not like the idea of "diversity training" so people can be taught the correct way to think. I also still disagree with Willie's refusal to perform any marriages at all.
But I am going to rethink this and do some more reading.
Bernie - I am a little stunned here.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure how to argue with someone who considers me unworthy of full citizenship. That I am not entitled to the same rights, benefits, privileges and tax breaks as others in this country.
If I died tomorrow and if I did not have a will nothing that is in my name pension, benefits, property would go to my "partner". It would go to another relative or to the state. Is that fair? Is that the America you believe in?
What you are saying is that my 29+ year relationship is not as valued or as valid as Elizabeth Taylor's 11 different marriages or Brittney Spears 55 hour marriage or........
You mentioned your Catholic upbringing - Read the bible you will find very few 1 man 1 woman relationship in it. That notion is a fairly modern development and mostly borne out of economic issues - 1 wife is cheaper.
The old campaign manager in me would have cautioned Willie that he was going to far with the no wedding pledge. The 53 year gay American in me was extremely proud of him and grateful for his support and courage.
Clearly he believes in the American Dream more than you do.
I can only imagine the comments that will follow - You know how to contact me if you want to discuss further
U already have, Donald. I certainly think you and your partner are entitled to the same rights and benefits as everyone else. But I am rethinking as a result of another email.
ReplyDelete".....although that seems contrived...."
ReplyDeleteWTF!!!!!!
Contrived!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you serious about any of this BOH? I just don't get.
It's too late for April Fools dude.
You have it absolutely wrong on marriage Bernie. The argument that marriage is limited to hetero couples because it exists for the production of children was trotted out by the anti-equality side in the Prop 8 case, where the pro-equality lawyers tore it to pieces. Is it OK to forbid post-menopausal women from marrying, or requiring all prospective spouses to have a fertility test and keep out those that don't pass? I suggest you watch this (http://bit.ly/ZOzVRK) excellent play, based on the Perry case, it'll resolve some of this for you. And if Reynolds had run in 1953, would you have written "Is Willie Reynolds Pushing Too Hard for Civil Rights?"? IN 1913, "Pushing Too Hard for Suffrage?" Whatever your personal beliefs, there is just no logical or sane argument against marriage equality.
ReplyDeleteYes, he is, and he will lose from this one issue
ReplyDeleteI don't see the black community agreeing that this is a civil rights issue. They above all should know. Gays had rights they did not have. The color of their skin will always be black while the gays sleep with anyone and everyone who will connect with them for the moment. The few with long lasting relationships should see how the majority of them hurt their cause more then we can. A good parent is just that. They teach and show their children what a foundation is. It isn't built on chaos, lack of self control and absolutely no compass. Watch Rome or Spartacus. You want to go backwards? My children deserve every bit of parenting and help that I can give them. Gay is about who you have a sexual relationship with. Straight is about who you love and then who becomes the other parent of your child. Even adopted children are welcomed into this. Marriage has always had restrictions and they do not take away human rights or civil rights. You can't marry more then one person. You can't marry your brother, father, mother, sister or your dog. Should we now allow all of this, yes people remarry but on average I bet gays have many more relationships and therefore would have many more marriages. So that is not an argument. Kids still do best with their own parents involved in their lives. That is their roots. BO stick to what you know is true.
ReplyDeleteBernie
ReplyDeleteA few years ago, my partner and I were invited to a Heterosexual Wedding. Weeks before the wedding we had dinner with the couple. Durning the dinner, we were friends of the bride to be and not the groom, the groom spend his time boasting about how when he married her, he would have FREE health insurance for the rest of his life. He also gloated that he would receive her pension if she dies etc. We just listened to his gloating out of respect for the bride to be. The bride, a life time Lehigh County Employee, had retired at 55 years of age. No babies in the Stars for this childless couple.
So all these shell games in trying to rationalize and justify bias are just another diversion. Looking for grey areas will just produce more grey areas.
It has been my firsthand experience as an Out Gay Senior who has had a successful relationship with the same man for 42 years ( do we score any points for that) that teaching diversity among Government is a full time job and requires maintenance. As a man who has spend some time on the battle field, we have a long way to go. I still have heterosexual men telling me that they know Homophobia when the see it. They dismiss totally my perspective and experience as irrelevant to the challenge towards full Equality and understanding. You always don't have the last word by entitlement. That somehow, they have the litmus test as to what is real and what is imagined.
You do give the impression that the Equality struggle is a source of humor. That the challenges of LGBT folks are a low calorie version discrimination. The discrimination is just a flesh wound. Laugh with us and not at us. It is one big Cosmic Joke anyway.
I don't know if the Reynolds announcement will get him any votes but it sure has gotten your and other's attention.
I'm not calling it something different. It is something different. You cannot equate them. It is only the union of man and woman that leads to new life, and that deserves its own name and own recognition, if nothing more.
ReplyDeleteWho said the term marriage defines a procreation arrangement? You? It's a bigoted statement. I suppose two people over 50 shouldn't be allowed to call their marriage "marriage" either.
Who speaks up for equality for children? They have a right to their natural parents. Gays deny them this. How is that right or fair? Where are the adults here? Gay couples seek to deny children at least one natural parent. If this were truly about children then gay people would accept our differences and would not put their own emotions ahead of the welfare of children. They just don't get it or they don't care. This is where we will always have severe disagreements.
ReplyDeleteOh please. Many of us were raised by a single parent. Don't try and invent nonexistent harms.
I do not like the idea of "diversity training" so people can be taught the correct way to think.
ReplyDeleteSounds like you had diversity training through friends that made you rethink your position. That's what diversity training is - no one forces you to do anything. It raises issues perhaps you never thought about.
That's the problem with this country. Everyone digs into their preconceived notions and refuses to see the other side of the argument.
The equality argument is OVER. It doesn't matter what old, straight people like me think any longer. I've definitely considered the arguments and come down solely on the side of gays and lesbians on this issue.
8:05 - you know the "Black Community" so well.. The NAACP has endorsed Marriage Equality as well as folks like Corey Booker, Michael Nutter, The Black Caucus in Congress, Barack Obama, Colin Powell - but you're right Black people do not support it
ReplyDelete"Sounds like you had diversity training through friends that made you rethink your position. That's what diversity training is - no one forces you to do anything. It raises issues perhaps you never thought about. "
ReplyDeleteThats right. It is via people I happen to respect and admire, and is voluntary. Nothing will be gained by mandatory sessions with people who are unknown. It is then just the thought police.
"Who said the term marriage defines a procreation arrangement? You? It's a bigoted statement. I suppose two people over 50 shouldn't be allowed to call their marriage "marriage" either. "
ReplyDeleteI get that heteros past the child bearing age are unable to procreate, but it is the special relationship between man and woman that does. There is nothing bigoted about noting that. It is just being honest. Perhaps you need some diversity training bc you seem too eager to throe out the bigot word.
As I have maintained from the onset, words have meanings.
I also agree that legally, there should be no distinction of any kind between permanent couples.
"I don't know if the Reynolds announcement will get him any votes but it sure has gotten your and other's attention"
ReplyDeleteOf course it will get him votes. The gay community is very strong, votes and makes contributions. Not a bad special interest to have on your side. Ask Obama.
It has made me think. I believe my original post on this topic was premature. But as I need to hear what the gay community thinks, they probably need to be a little more understanding and sympathetic to the concerns of the hetero community. I'm not sensing much of that, just a blanket disdain for anyone who does not accept that mindset carte blanche.
Will Bloom, Your points are well taken, I confess.
ReplyDelete"".....although that seems contrived...."
ReplyDeleteWTF!!!!!!
Contrived!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Thus pay be an inartful way of putting it but there is no way that same sex couples an naturally have children. It requires other methods.
In California the blacks voted against gay marriage. In many states the blacks come out and vote against it. Most black pastors are against it and preach about it so no the blacks are not for it they are split like the rest of us. A single parent household can raise a good kid but to set out to deny a child a relationship witha natural parent or 2 is nothing to brag about. It usually makes for a poorer house in more ways then one. Gay woman either hate or dislike men. They raise their boys in pink just to lead him away from being too boyish. The girls they teach to dislike men. Kids have enough angst to deal with and these type of parents just load it on. No reasonable person can believe say they would not have wanted 2 parents in the house to love and provide for them. Gay men love their mothers and want to be woman in many cases. They are not as bad about raising gay children but they average much higher then heters. Just because u call a skunk a cat does not make it one. We are different. We have a history of men loving woman and woman loving men. Stray from that and it goes downhill fast.
ReplyDelete6:10
ReplyDeleteDo you have cold hard numbers & actaul studies from real legit sources to back up your statements?
I do not believe 610 could find a legitimate source if it hit her or him in the face. One who has to attempt to devalue someone else's love or relationship obviously has an issue with their own. Describing ridiculous and old stereotypes does not strengthen the argument, it makes you seem foolish and antiquated. No one wants a child to be without a parent but our definition if a parent is what differs. Gender roles began with society, they are not set in stone. A patent loves, guides, nurtures, feeds, clothes and loves a child and we all know that men and women can do that. Kids in this world would have less angst if everyone was taught to worry about themselves and that the way others lead their lives is none of their business. Experts on children in the AAP have already made their statement about this but by all means, you know better. Come up with a legitimate, non-religious hard core stats, please.
ReplyDelete<<>>.
ReplyDeleteBernie
Understanding is a two way street! There is a big difference between a reason and an excuse. You seem to toss the hot potato back in your perception that LGBT folks don't have the patience in this dialogue. Using words like "distain" only widen the divide. It does require patience to read post that are simply meant to be a fly in the ointment. In this challenge towards full Equality, Gay folks stopped waiting for the crumbs to fall off the table that we can't sit at. When you read some of the post here, it gives the impression that many adversaries to Equality don't want to see the bigger picture . Yet many post have been inspiring. You can't teach something to someone who doesn't want to learn.
When people act like adults, more often they get treated that way. There has been this privilege that exited that Homosexuality use to be discussed as if LGBT folks are not even in the room-some subspecies. LGBT folks have been listening all their lives to the excuse and insults meant to berate rather than build a bridge.
Now it is your turn to listen.
ReplyDeleteThats right. It is via people I happen to respect and admire, and is voluntary. Nothing will be gained by mandatory sessions with people who are unknown. It is then just the thought police.
That's a very Archie Bunker view of the world. I was required to take a multicultural issues course in grad school. If you go into something with an open mind and have some level of respect for the professional presenting the program, it's nothing to be afraid of. The worst that can happen is you become a better person.
But as I need to hear what the gay community thinks, they probably need to be a little more understanding and sympathetic to the concerns of the hetero community. I'm not sensing much of that, just a blanket disdain for anyone who does not accept that mindset carte blanche.
ReplyDeleteJust like the black folks need to be sympathetic to the white folks in Selma. They needed time to adjust.
No, these people don't need your approval for equal rights.
As long as people put children first the gay community will not ever be seen as people who would do a good job raising the next generation. Sorry. When I saw Obama speak to all of the baby killers what did I see???? Gay woman. Many of them. It is okay to them because children are somewhere behind them and that is where they remain. Natural parents mostly do not do that. Why do we want more people who don't give or can't put children first. This is about the emotional needs of the most emotional among us. The gay community. Kids don't thrive with adults like that. They mimic it. They fight to be first with someone. And again as it was said many times what is next.? Lesbians wanting to marry some oversexed weird guy. Not a question. It is happening in Canada. Married people have a lovable devotion to each other and their children that gays rarely do. That is why they "make love" it is not just having sex which is where 90% of the gay community is. Heters know the difference and if they do marry for sexual attraction it does not last. At least most of them figure it out, because they can. It is just the way it is. That is what we all need to know and accept and many of us do. Reality is not hate. Force is hate which is what all of these fringe emotional groups are doing.
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get your facts? How many same-sex couples do you know? You sound like a right-wing hate-monger without a clue. Read up on the ACTUAL source I suggested. You are flat out wrong about children and same-sex couples. I don't expect you to change as it is your twisted perogitive to feel that way but you can't ask someone to stop loving the person they love either.
ReplyDeleteI know many gays and haven't met more then a couple who are different then the rest. They have long time devoted partners own businesses and don't need to marry to just pick a fight. They are homosexual and not lesbians. They do not have children and don't want any. They have a respect for the institution of marriage and love both parents as well as both sexes. They don't carry a cross like the lesbians and many of them do not even like lesbians. I have witness children being raised by lesbians and I don't see a thing good about it. We learn by our experiences and I've had enough to form my opinions which were formed and formed by what I see. Young girls are shown and taught that boys are worthless just like their fathers even if he was the better parent. Boys are feminized so as not to make them too boyish. It's tough enoug on kids without more confusion a nd hatred. I do not care about what a gay person does or wants but when it comes to the children I do care. Gay men do love their mothers and do know a kid deserves to have their mother. And they do not think men are worthless. So the need for the father is there too. It is just a bunch of 40 year old teens who want their way regardless of anything else. We all know this. They hate herers. because we put children before them. See the pro abortion group O spoke to. Many many lesbians. Thats how much they put kids first. Why would they even care???? And why do men marry lesbians. They have children and the lesbian takes the kids and leaves and many times hates the father of the kids. Guess they are sickened by having had sex with them. it is just sex and was just sex for them. Maybe real woman can see they are not man enough for them. What do these guys expect??? I live in realville and it sure isn't pretty any longer.
ReplyDeleteLook up the source-I dare you. Hiding behind the idea that same sex marriage is bad for kids doesn't fly-read what the EXPERTS have to say.
ReplyDeleteI know what I see and no expert can take the place of experience. You're arguement is wrong and once again it is about you , the gay so called adult. It really is never about the kids for you live a self centered emotion me first life I want to hook up life. Many of us do but we grow up when we have our own for the most part natural children. You seek to deny children this so how can anyone agree with you except more of the same. I just found a list of female teachers who are up on charges for molesting and raping girls. This and the gay priest is what we have come to expect. Pedophiles may be the next protected class. You really expect society to embraced all of this??? Don't think so. Just leave kids alone and we might all get along.
ReplyDeleteBoy, this post sure brought out the bigots and the haters.
ReplyDeleteIt's important to remember how many of them still live amoung us.
Thanks BOH.
No tolerance for those who oppose your views. No one else bothered to support your views. People know the gay community has pushed things way too far with their demands, and special treatment. You expect respect but you know nothing about giving it. I sure don't see gay ads on TV or on highway billboards or anywhere. Could it be people have had enough? Could it be you can't get the support you demand? Good parents raise children better then this. Has nothing to do with hate just sick of your demands. I live in the real world and it doesn't have you everywhere I look except with this president. He will not be there forever and maybe then the special treatment will stop. Hey the squeaky wheel does get the oil.
ReplyDelete@12:38 PM
ReplyDeleteI rest my case. Ignorant haters.