IJ
Thanks.
But don't you think it would be more helpful to be more proactive about it?
Not much I can do after the fact should you judge one of my posts to be "nonproductive."
Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor
Moderator: Available
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... nders.html
In some interesting local news, Mayor Sanders reversed his position on same sex marriage and now supports equality in that arena--an emotional decision he made after considering how difficult it was to look in his daughters eyes and tell her she wasn't entitled to the same treatment under the law as a heterosexual. Sometimes, just knowing someone makes all the difference. For me, that means the future is bright. More people are out, more people know those out people, and as they spread the word we're not antimatter, change is inevitable.
There were forum entries on two recent related stories, one of which had to be closed by the paper to comments after vitriol reached an unacceptable level. The second attracted a huge slew of comments ranging from observations that same sexers are perverts stuffing their lifestyle down other people's throats, as well as occasional, more cogent replies, but hey, I'm biased.
In some interesting local news, Mayor Sanders reversed his position on same sex marriage and now supports equality in that arena--an emotional decision he made after considering how difficult it was to look in his daughters eyes and tell her she wasn't entitled to the same treatment under the law as a heterosexual. Sometimes, just knowing someone makes all the difference. For me, that means the future is bright. More people are out, more people know those out people, and as they spread the word we're not antimatter, change is inevitable.
There were forum entries on two recent related stories, one of which had to be closed by the paper to comments after vitriol reached an unacceptable level. The second attracted a huge slew of comments ranging from observations that same sexers are perverts stuffing their lifestyle down other people's throats, as well as occasional, more cogent replies, but hey, I'm biased.
--Ian
IJ
But isn't "bias"--on whatever side it appears relevent?
Another way to look at the story is a powerful man, acting "emotionally" in his words bascially changed his postion on behalf of HIS kid.
How is this any different than say deciding that he wanted special privilages for kid so he uses his influence to try and change the rules---for them---its clear that "other" people benefiting from his actions is the pretty much the furthest thing from his mind.
He is mainly interested in how it effects HIS child---prior to this he could care less, and if his OWN child was not directly effected he woud not care now.
I'm pleased that he finally came to his senses, terribly disapointed that it took him so long and that nepotism (in a sense) played such an important role.
Sure there is more than one way to look at it---and one of the them is the above.
But isn't "bias"--on whatever side it appears relevent?
Another way to look at the story is a powerful man, acting "emotionally" in his words bascially changed his postion on behalf of HIS kid.
How is this any different than say deciding that he wanted special privilages for kid so he uses his influence to try and change the rules---for them---its clear that "other" people benefiting from his actions is the pretty much the furthest thing from his mind.
He is mainly interested in how it effects HIS child---prior to this he could care less, and if his OWN child was not directly effected he woud not care now.
I'm pleased that he finally came to his senses, terribly disapointed that it took him so long and that nepotism (in a sense) played such an important role.
Sure there is more than one way to look at it---and one of the them is the above.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
“In the end, I couldn't look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships, their very lives, were any less meaningful than the marriage I share with my wife, Rana,” said Sanders.
It's not just his daughter. It's ANY of them, but his daughter helped him realize what he needed to do. I find it a serious reach to say that a public official dramatically and publicly altered his position on a controversial political issue to win benefits for a single person. Or, if he did, the "benefit" was a father's support, not any part of a marriage benefit. She might not see those for years or decades and I'm sure she's not uninsured or unable to contract a lawyer to make other arrangements. These aren't tangible benefits; rather, he is giving her his support and his commitment to her that ALL Californians should be treated equally, something she helped him see, and that is a weird kind of nepotism, since he's not really giving her something, rather, he is giving all same sex couples something to honor her. "Nepotism" isn't really a word I'd apply to the 62 thousand San Diegans that are part of a same sex family.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and you're right; neither of us know the guy. What I do know is how families tend to change when the reality of their kid's or sometimes parent's etc orientation sinks in, and it would be more in line with the above. Sometimes these changes take a while, like an earthquake builds tension and then there is sudden change. He's republican and generally conservative so there probably was a lifetime of pressure and miseducation he had to deal with before embracing his daughter as an equal... I try to focus on the bravery of the change rather than the delays when I can.
It's not just his daughter. It's ANY of them, but his daughter helped him realize what he needed to do. I find it a serious reach to say that a public official dramatically and publicly altered his position on a controversial political issue to win benefits for a single person. Or, if he did, the "benefit" was a father's support, not any part of a marriage benefit. She might not see those for years or decades and I'm sure she's not uninsured or unable to contract a lawyer to make other arrangements. These aren't tangible benefits; rather, he is giving her his support and his commitment to her that ALL Californians should be treated equally, something she helped him see, and that is a weird kind of nepotism, since he's not really giving her something, rather, he is giving all same sex couples something to honor her. "Nepotism" isn't really a word I'd apply to the 62 thousand San Diegans that are part of a same sex family.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and you're right; neither of us know the guy. What I do know is how families tend to change when the reality of their kid's or sometimes parent's etc orientation sinks in, and it would be more in line with the above. Sometimes these changes take a while, like an earthquake builds tension and then there is sudden change. He's republican and generally conservative so there probably was a lifetime of pressure and miseducation he had to deal with before embracing his daughter as an equal... I try to focus on the bravery of the change rather than the delays when I can.
--Ian
IJ
Its not a "reach" I'm just asking a question.
In most any other contexts his actions might well be viewed in a far different light.
He viewed the situation in one fashion for years--right up until it was HIS kid that was having problems---THEN he takes steps to use his influence to make changes.
He was not concerned in the least for the "62,000 San Diegans"---at least not until it was HIS OWN child that was faced with the SAME problem that "62,000 San Diegans" currently faced and have been facing for generations.
The only thing that changed between yesterday and today was whose child it effected.
Like I said, I'm overjoyed that he eventually came around---I'm just disappointed that it took what is essentially nepotism to get some action.
Your probably right and that is simply what it took to get him to see/feel the real human effect of his POV--it just bothers me a little that had his own child NOT been directly involved he would still be doing his SOP.
Its not a "reach" I'm just asking a question.
In most any other contexts his actions might well be viewed in a far different light.
He viewed the situation in one fashion for years--right up until it was HIS kid that was having problems---THEN he takes steps to use his influence to make changes.
He was not concerned in the least for the "62,000 San Diegans"---at least not until it was HIS OWN child that was faced with the SAME problem that "62,000 San Diegans" currently faced and have been facing for generations.
The only thing that changed between yesterday and today was whose child it effected.
Like I said, I'm overjoyed that he eventually came around---I'm just disappointed that it took what is essentially nepotism to get some action.
Your probably right and that is simply what it took to get him to see/feel the real human effect of his POV--it just bothers me a little that had his own child NOT been directly involved he would still be doing his SOP.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Sounds like we mostly agree. One thing to point out is that he didn't just find out about his daughter. He's known a long time and per the article, it's been public in some small political circles. It was when he actually had to ACT in a way supportive or opposing to his daughter that the conflict between his parental support and conservative stance had to get resolved.
Most humans seem to share this failing. We react more when our child is killed than our neighbor, when someone like us is killed than somone who is not, and Americans more than, say, Rwandans. This is understandable and there are even simple biologic explanations as to why this is so, but our brains are now large enough to have lofty ideals that point out our ethical imperfections.
Most humans seem to share this failing. We react more when our child is killed than our neighbor, when someone like us is killed than somone who is not, and Americans more than, say, Rwandans. This is understandable and there are even simple biologic explanations as to why this is so, but our brains are now large enough to have lofty ideals that point out our ethical imperfections.
--Ian
IJ
Of course we do.
"Understandable" it may be---but IMO a person that can't fathom the ramifications of their actions/thought processes unless and until it directly effects their own children/family/them, needs to sharpen up a bit.
Maybe I expect to much from the people we elect to lead--but then again maybe we expect to little.
Of course we do.
"Understandable" it may be---but IMO a person that can't fathom the ramifications of their actions/thought processes unless and until it directly effects their own children/family/them, needs to sharpen up a bit.
Maybe I expect to much from the people we elect to lead--but then again maybe we expect to little.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay ... _in_ruins/
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
Two humorous...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
and one decent overview site... on the issue.
http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html
Two humorous...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm
and one decent overview site... on the issue.
--Ian
Clinton's Impeachment
Be it deliberate or an over sight:
".. very vocal against Clinton during his impeachment" was for LYING UNDER OATH, not because Monica 'apple polished" the President. It might be hard for Clinton apologists to swal..., I mean accept this but look at the actual charges.
Shucks!
History for the Left is what they write the previous morning.
Could we have our own Evita Peron in the Office soon? She certainly has her Juan man. [grin]
".. very vocal against Clinton during his impeachment" was for LYING UNDER OATH, not because Monica 'apple polished" the President. It might be hard for Clinton apologists to swal..., I mean accept this but look at the actual charges.
Shucks!
History for the Left is what they write the previous morning.
Could we have our own Evita Peron in the Office soon? She certainly has her Juan man. [grin]
