unless noted by actual quotes, all statements are paraphrased from the actual comments
So, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is being alternately pilloried and praised. She was asked a question at the Miss USA pageant by gay activist and celebrity gossip Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (aka, Perez Hilton, who takes his nickname and name for his blog from his friendship with noted heiress Paris Hilton). Several members of the audience didn't like her honest answer, and would have preferred a politically correct answer.
Mr. Lavandeira would have preferred that as well. When speaking to Larry King, he said that Miss USA should be politically correct, since she represents all of the US. His expected answer to his question about gay marriage was not what he received, and he was unhappy, as evident by a hate-filled video blog in which he called the contestant a "dumb bitch".
Personally, I think that her answer could have been a little more articulate, as many answers given at these events could be (does anyone even know what the question asked of Miss North Carolina was? I looked, but couldn't find a transcript or video).
Mr. Lavandeira said that he expected an answer that was weak, and said that it should be up to the states. However, it HAS been up to the states. Same-sex marriages have been voted DOWN in EVERY election they are brought up (the only exception I can find was a vote to amend the state constitution in Arizona). Same-sex marriage exists only because of decisions in the courts, rather than based upon the will of the people, CONTRARY to what Mr. Lavandeira says would be appropriate.
If left up to the states, as Mr. Lavandeira says it should be, recent history has shown that the states are more in line with Miss Prejean's opinion, nullifying his arguemnt that she would not represent American values.
Mr. Lavandeira should learn more about that which he speaks, before insulting someone with whom he disagrees. Contrary to what the gay rights movement in America would want you to think, gay marriage is NOT the law of the land, and has never been approved by the majority of the people.
California, the most liberal state of the union, approved at the ballot box by an overwhelming margin, to NOT allow same-sex marriage. This led to hate-filled diatribes by celebrities and protests that in other circumstances would have been termed hate crimes against religious groups that had little to nothing to do with the lack of approval in the state.
The judiciary across the nation has a problem. Too many are ignoring the will of the people in favor of special permissions and laws for a minority. In attempting to offer "equal protection", they are instead setting up an environment where "unequal rights" are being granted.
Let me be clear. I think that marriage is one man and one woman. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals expressing their love for one another, but it IS to say that marriage is something that is just not an option for them to do so. It comes down to something that sounds rather simplistic, but if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get to join the club.
How about this? I'll start referring to myself as a homosexual. I sleep with my wife, and am not attracted at all to men, but I am a homosexual.
You mean I can't do that? Because I don't meet the "requirements" set down to define something, I can't call myself that?
Hmm.... funny how it works when turned around, isn't it?
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Hollywood and the rationality of a 5-year-old...
So, I am shopping in Weis market, and use the automated check-out. Squirt, my 5-year-old son goes down to bag the groceries. I had to re-bag them, but, what are you gonna do? He was pleased with himself that he could help. Anyway, while I was re-bagging the groceries, my son looks at the Redbox (great thing for movies, as long as you don't procrastinate in returning videos), and spots the indicator for the movie "Milk" (he reads better than the other kids in his class).
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
It makes me like my cats all that much more...
It seems that some people forget that it costs nothing to be nice.
Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.
But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?
I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?
Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?
I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.
But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?
If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).
I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.
Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.
To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.
It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.
Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.
It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".
Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:
"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."
Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.
But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.
But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.
Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.
But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.
At least if we want a decent world.
Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.
But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?
I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?
Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?
I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.
But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?
If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).
I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.
Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.
To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.
It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.
Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.
It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".
Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:
"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."
Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.
But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.
But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.
Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.
But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.
At least if we want a decent world.
Friday, November 14, 2008
We're just a couple of months away.
The first celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day since B.O. was elected to lead the nation.
There will be much pomp and circumstance. Much will be made of the fact that B.O. is a black man, elected to the highest office in the land.
Dr. King would weep.
His dream has been given a terrible blow.
Dr. King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
This has taken place. My children play with black children in school. My children know as "Uncle Ryan" a black man who is one of my closest friends. To them, these children, and their "uncle" are not black. They are simply good people. Their skin color is not even a secondary concern.
Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled by not just my family, but families all across this nation.
In this past election, 95% of blacks voted for now president-elect B.O.
It is difficult to say that skin color did not play a factor, because clearly 95% of whites did not vote for John McCain. Many whites voted for B.O. as well.
Since the election, we have heard how it was "historic". Frankly, every election is historic. There have been less than 50 men who have held the office of the American presidency. B.O. is the latest man to join that elite club. But that is not why the media and other call this election historic.
As far as I am concerned, the nation elected a Democrat to office, not a black man. I focus, not on his skin color, but on what I have been able to determine about his character.
But many who sing the praises of Dr. King do not, and by this lack of proper focus, have set his dream back quite a bit, simply by making such a big deal about his skin color.
Dr. King said:
"...we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
I, Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. long for that freedom, when skin color does not matter to anyone.
Now that we are being told that history has been made by electing a black president, it looks like that dream is further away than ever.
There will be much pomp and circumstance. Much will be made of the fact that B.O. is a black man, elected to the highest office in the land.
Dr. King would weep.
His dream has been given a terrible blow.
Dr. King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
This has taken place. My children play with black children in school. My children know as "Uncle Ryan" a black man who is one of my closest friends. To them, these children, and their "uncle" are not black. They are simply good people. Their skin color is not even a secondary concern.
Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled by not just my family, but families all across this nation.
In this past election, 95% of blacks voted for now president-elect B.O.
It is difficult to say that skin color did not play a factor, because clearly 95% of whites did not vote for John McCain. Many whites voted for B.O. as well.
Since the election, we have heard how it was "historic". Frankly, every election is historic. There have been less than 50 men who have held the office of the American presidency. B.O. is the latest man to join that elite club. But that is not why the media and other call this election historic.
As far as I am concerned, the nation elected a Democrat to office, not a black man. I focus, not on his skin color, but on what I have been able to determine about his character.
But many who sing the praises of Dr. King do not, and by this lack of proper focus, have set his dream back quite a bit, simply by making such a big deal about his skin color.
Dr. King said:
"...we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
I, Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. long for that freedom, when skin color does not matter to anyone.
Now that we are being told that history has been made by electing a black president, it looks like that dream is further away than ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)