Louisiana boy punished for talking about gay mom

.

Three things or categories that when modern liberal bigotry is set aside become less obscured and more easily understood by almost anyone willing to accept the Truth. Liberals tend to believe it's "all about us" whereas Conservatives tend to believe its "all about right and wrong". The selfish opinion on one side and the values opinion on the other side, it's not too difficult to see to which side the value oriented person will gravitate. There are Virtues and there are Vices. Those who believe in Values can more easily see the difference between them, those who have rejected Values find themselves blinded to the Truth in Life.

>>>>Three things or categories that when modern liberal bigotry is set aside become less obscured and more easily understood by almost anyone willing to accept the Truth. Liberals tend to believe it's "all about us" whereas Conservatives tend to believe its "all about right and wrong". The selfish opinion on one side and the values opinion on the other side, it's not too difficult to see to which side the value oriented person will gravitate. There are Virtues and there are Vices. Those who believe in Values can more easily see the difference between them, those who have rejected Values find themselves blinded to the Truth in Life.>>>>

And based on whose 'right and wrong' or whose Values?

I value many of the same things that you do; however, I also value many things you don't. That doesn't make my values any less important than yours, nor does it mean that my Truths aren't the 'right' ones. We disagree based upon our own beliefs and our own morals...there is no right or wrong except in our own eyes and hearts. However, the real right or wrong comes when you (generic) deem your values to be more important than mine and try to inflict them upon me via punishment of some type or law changing/modification.

TONI

Ed, you may not like to believe it, but homophobia is the last socially accepted form of bigotry. Anti-semetism, racism, mysogeny, descrimination based on age or national origin -- all are now illegal, and rightly so. All were openly tolerated or legally encoded less than 50 years ago. The law does not impose tolerance -- you're still legally free to hate whomever you want. But except for homophobia, you are not legally free to impose that hatred on the hatee. And you shouldn't be free to act on your homophobia, any more than you're now legally free to act on most other forms of bigotry.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... sexuality is a behavior, not an identity. One's views on all aspects of same does not necessarily equate with hatred and especially not phobia.

Liberalism in it's present form seems to more appropriately fit your description of bigotry. No tolerance for women who oppose favoritism towards our gender, no tolerance for blacks who don't believe their skin color grants them more rights under the law, etc.

Evie

.

Or perhaps, Evie, a nominee to the bench who happens to be a Catholic.

forms and examples of bigotry.

You are a LIBERAL bigot while I am a Conservative one (should we settle for "political bigotry" here?)

There is NAMBLA, bigoted in their own beliefs but accepted widely by members.

"Anti-semetism, racism, mysogeny, descrimination based on age or national origin -- all are now illegal, and rightly so."

Anti-semitism is not "illegal" Dave. Racism is not "illegal" Dave. Mysogeny I'll take your word for because I am unfamiliar with it but misogyny (what you may have meant) still isn't "illegal" as anyone is free to hate anyone their heart desires. Discrimination based on age or national origin or sex are indeed illegal now, so if one wants to discriminate one does so for other reasons.

The only thing illegal in any of your cited examples is acting in such a manner that it causes some damage and then the damaged party or the state has legal recourse depending on specific damage.

It is no more or less wrong to lynch a normal person than a homosexual although so called "Hate Crime Laws" have had the effect of granting some more rights and priveledges than others by making it seem worse for one reason or other. (I can't fathom the idea that it is somehow worse to kill someone because you hate them than it is to kill someone because you love them, but if I ever need to I'll remember to shout out loud and clear that "I'm only doing this because I love you!" to avoid any serious penalty.)

Rather just than tossing terms such as bigotry around Dave I would suggest that you learn what they really mean. As a "well documented in your own posts" BIGOT you shouldn't disparage bigotry.

Hi, Ed.

>>Anti-semitism is not "illegal" Dave. Racism is not "illegal" Dave.<<
Holding those beliefs is not. Promulgating those beliefs as a teacher or public official is. Acting on those beliefs by discriminating in hiring, promotion, housing, treatment in a restaurant, etc. is. Unfortunately, acting in the similar fashion against gays is not currently illegal -- but should be.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

"homophobia is the last socially accepted form of bigotry"

Are you living in another world? "socially accepted...bigotry"? Where is 'homophobia' socially accepted? The truth is that the last group for which bigotry is still socially acceptable is Christians. Even here today there is no shame in referring to 'Thumpers' and 'Bible Thumpers'.

... his defense of calling Thomas an Uncle Tom!

Evie

Hi, Evie.

My comments about Thomas are based on his personal actions and attitudes -- not the color he happened to be born. A psychiatrist friends says he clearly has an inferiority complex because he benefitted from affirmative action, and now is trying to destroy the program to someehow prove he's worthy without it (obviously a flawed action, as you can't change the past, just the present and future). That's the behavior I liken to someone climbing up a ship's ladder to escape a fire while intentionally stepping on the fingers of those trying desperately to follow the same path to safety.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... your feeble attempts to rationalize that race has nothing to do with your use of the label are irrelevant in that context.

Secondly, Dave, since you fashion yourself some sort of champion for the little guy by tearing down institutions that afforded you opportunity through privilege, I wonder if your psychiatrist friend might not also consider you to have an inferiority complex. There's no difference really in the comparison of Thomas' beliefs vis a vis affirmative action and yours wrt getting places through white male connections of your government bureaucrat father.

It's not an inferiority complex Dave. Those like Thomas and myself can acknowledge that somewhere along the line we probably benefitted from an unfair quota practice. (In my case, were I male, it is questionable whether or not I would have gained admission to the college I attended). But it is demeaning and insulting to be forever in the debt of some public policy for any achievements our own merit and hard work may have attained for us. And "owing" a flawed program for some success is simply not reason enough to continue it. Thomas, myself and others believe our Constitution calls for equal rights and treatment of all. To give preference to one based on race, gender, or whatever necessitates discrimination against another.

Evie

Using the character by Harriet Beecher Stowe as the proverbial "whipping boy" by liberals then and now is the time honored method they always engage in of "blaming the victim". The villian was not Uncle Tom, but rather those who abused a good man. Sometimes bad things happen to good people in spite of their own integrity and personal honor, but that is no reason to despise them. Liberals are good at despising such.

True, James. Let us consider the actions of the Character Uncle Tom in Harriet Beecher Stowe's book. When Simon Legree orders him to whip a slave who is too sick to work, Uncle Tom refuses and says, "(t)his yer (here) thing I can't feel it right to do; - and mas'r I never shall do it-Never! I'll die first." Simon Legree then orders Uncle Tom whipped almost to death, but Uncle Tom never relents.
However, his character is now considered to be "spineless" by many people using his name as a label. Funny how perceptions change in later days when current political views are superimposed. I can't help but wonder if some people who use his name as a label have ever been aware of that passage in the book.

have ever even read any part of the book and even more doubt that they are aware of the motive behind writing it.

I further doubt they are even aware of a later book of HBS - "The Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin"

If they were they would not phrase things as they do because they would be aware of EXACTLY how foolish they make themselves appear.

I found a copy online that with any luck they will avail themselves of:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/StoKeyu.html

Edward, then we have another term used in current days, "slave driver".
I'd bet that you know it, but how many others do you think know that originally a slave driver was usually black?
Dave K., don't confuse the term "overseer" (usually white) with slave driver. Owner wanted "X" done, he told the overseer to have it done. The overseer told the driver to have the rest of the slaves do it. Remember the dialog at the beginning of the movie "Gone With the Wind"? One slave says that it's 'quitin time. Another says that he was the one who was the one to say when it was 'quitin time.

Hi J,

Oh no, I wouldn't possibly be familiar with such terms and you shouldn't be either. It is not PC to become familiar with such through past or present research when it is simpler to rely on what someone thinks they heard someone else say something similar meant (I think you get my drift )

Just wait, Edward, in 4 days it will be 7 December, and I'll wager that the "everybody knows" history will fly.

I do believe you are right!

Their new versions of history are always interesting.

about 7 December?

Ian

The attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.

What is it you expect to happen in terms of "everybody knows" that obviously you believe is incorrect?

Ian

It varies, Ian, depending on the political view of the poster. A lot of it runs in the vein of the U.S. as having caused it - you know, sometimes to the degree of "U.S. bashing". Fairly recently (beginning of August) it was some revisionist fantasy about Teddy Roosevelt and what was nicknamed the "Great White Fleet".

Good heavens, Dave, you sound just like a Kluxer trying to justify segreation and such nonsense. Same line, they justified it on what they called actions and attitudes of blacks, supposedly, in their "logic".
Has your psychiatrist friend ever met, let alone talked with Thomas? I seriously doubt it. What is the basis of his "diagnosis" of an inferiority complex, the fact that he he benefitted from affirmative action? I find that "diagnosis" with such limited professional contact with the party to be laughable. Personally, I sometimes find the "hooey" that some shrinks try to shovel to be entertaining, if nothing else.
Dave, have you ever asked him about his professional view on your calling Thomas an "Uncle Tom"? If he exists and is your friend, I would think that he would have a lot of personal interaction with you on which to base his opinion of that.

.

.