Love me love me, say that you love me
September 21, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
From tolerance to “celebration“:
It’s not enough to just tolerate — schools need to celebrate diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity, Young said.
“We tolerate bad smells, not people.”
Via.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-.....th-ns.html
I bet this REALLY pisses you and George off.
“We tolerate bad smells, not people.â€
What about bad smelling people?
Please try to stay on topic, dear.
Oh, you mean, what you posted “We tolerate bad smells, not people.†isn’t the topic?
None of this is surprising really, more of the same chasing after the wind; the GLBT cult seeking total validation of its second-reality nonsense.
As for the story about birth registration, it doesn’t make me angry. However, it is absurd and worthy to be mocked. As far as “vital” statistical information goes, no human being can have more than one mother.
If a child is born, grows up and sees this nonsense on his or her vital statistics, can they exercise the right of deletion; that is, delete the totally irrelevant and NON-VITAL information from their “vital” statistics?
Honestly, do these children not have fathers, and if they he isn’t known, shouldn’t the VITAL statistic read something akin to “Father: Anonymous (maybe add here, Exceedingly Generous) Sperm Donor”?
Again, none of these grievances the GLBT cult has raised are actually grievous. Rather, they simply offend GLBT sensitivities, the delusions they want validated so as to seem less absurd, less comically stupid.
“no human being can have more than one mother”
Can an adopted child have more than one mother?
We’re talking vital statistics, so no. A child is born from a mother and a father, and what happens after that is quite another matter.
“We’re talking vital statistics, so no. A child is born from a mother and a father, and what happens after that is quite another matter.”
not for long I’m guessing
Yes, but when a child is born, and the parents are married at the time, then both names appear on the birth certificate. Sure, it may seem like this is just another attempt by the GLTB community to change things, but in actuality, it is just asking them to apply the same rules.
It is just common sense. Rule exists, follow the rule.
No, it’s not just common sense because the rules of “vital statistics” can only be applied to identifying one’s mother and father. Children of families with two same sex parents are still the product of a mother and a father like anyone else, and that is the information sought after in listing one’s vital statistics.
Changes to the rules of “vital statistics,” in this manner, suggests that those statistics are no longer to be considered vital—an utterly basic identification of the biological union this child was a product of—and we are simply registering babies like one registers the owners of a pet chihuahua.
Vital statistics are good to know, especially considering that some children would like to know who their father is, irrespective of whether or not they had two mothers, or vice versa.
Crying over the “discriminatory” nature of “vital statistics” is utterly ridiculous for these reasons. Such statistics have little to do with the parents of a child but rather the child him or herself. To ignore, or dress up a child’s vital statistics, so that a same-sex couple can feel that their family unit is lacking in nothing—when obviously it is lacking parents of the opposite sex—is grossly insensitive to the children, and ultimately adults, that those statistics are centred around.
Clearly, as with the matter of “celebrating diversity” in sexual orientation and gender identity, it has everything to do with the warped world view of some same-sex couples who share parenting responsibilities; more to do with “proving,” legally anyway, the “equivalent” validation of those relations (which is absurd), and less so the actual interests of children. Such people are utterly selfish and close-minded when it comes to any world view but their own. Like members of a cult, they are sorely lacking common sense and civility toward the interests of society at large.
That’s what’s so interesting about Lee Harris. He understands that his identification as a “gay man” exists within, and is very dependent upon (civil liberty wise), a pre-existing and wider cosmion of meaning. He’s no fundamentalist GLBTer!
Lee Harris is one man, with one opinion, and may not represent the majority. It seems as though this is one of the reasons you have such an affinity for him.
Majority opinion has nothing to do with it. Majorities can get things wrong. Recall that democracy was wisely observed as the worst form of government, except for all the rest. And I would also offer that gay rights would have gone no where in this country if majority opinion had always played trump. It didn’t, and “gay rights” have won stunning victories in recent years.
I think I’ve made it clear above why “vital statistics,” by definition of being vital, exclude the “other parent” in situations where a child is raised by two persons of the same sex. Once you’ve identified the biological mother, unless you’re going to identify the father or list him as “unknown”, any further information about “parents” is not vital.
I knew very little about Lee Harris before this radio interview:
http://dennisprager.townhall.c.....8acca9da65
You should listen to it. He is an impressive fellow, clearly a “reasonable man,” trying to pay attention to the logos of reality.
His comments on same-sex marriage are near the end of the interview. His recent book is called “The Suicide of Reason;” a fine title, if I might say so myself.
I know who he is, have read his stuff, and have listened to the interview you posted a few months back. I disagree with many of his position.
George, I’ve noted you make a point of specifying that Lee Harris is gay every time you raise his arguments.
If you feel being gay, per se, conveys special authority in this area, may I suggest you compare his view to that of other gay writers on the issue?
Or does “inside knowledge” only convey special authority when the speaker agrees with you?
Ezra, try to stay on topic. Given that it is now mandatory to do so, how would you prefer I celebrate your sexual behavior?
First off, Greg can try to make us stay on topic, but until he starts playing to role of censor, then frankly, you can fuck off (which I am not convinced he has time or the willingness to do - because he lets racist comments such as this to stay up):
“These Indians are all bullshit.
Think about it, have they ever provided a piece of Archelogical evidence to prove that they were here first? Never, they just make false claims to get free money for booze and taxi
rides.The whites in caledonia had better nip this in the bud, or else they will be kicking all of you off your property.”
Second, Aaron, I am not really interested in commenting on the topic that took you less than 5 minutes to post, because it really shows no thought on your part. This is why I put something I felt was more interesting up, and as you noticed, the topic got more response than yours did. And while I disagree with George on almost everything, I at least have to respect the fact that he takes the time to build a post for people to react to.
Third, what would you like me to say? Something mean about the backdoor babie doll you love so much? Or is that just too mean, considering I don’t know her (not that it ever stopped you from saying mean things about my husband - so I actually don’t feel all that bad about it). Or, would you have me write something outrageous (and actually on topic) like diversity should be celebrated in schools by making the kids do decoupage art projects out of rainbow paper on pride week and then taking them on a field-trip to a pride parade to show the leather daddies their fine work? If you really wanted, I could write a little play for you as well, if you are feeling left out. In fact, that would be the topic of the play - Aaron bitterly jealous that George gets more of my attention then you do.
But you know what? If you really want to know what I think, then actually take some time to write something for me to react to. Use the same amount of time as you expect others to do in reply, and then maybe you will get the conversations you are looking for. Until then, I may just keep trying to trump you, and keep your discussion threads off topic.
Ezra, calm down and let’s try again. Do you agree with Young & Hick that tolerance is no longer adequate and that we should be celebrating the sexual behavior of one another?
No thank you. I am not interested in discussing this topic with you Aaron.
Well that’s a shame.
Not really, since I still think your topic is lame.
Yawn. Trolls are boring.
Not as boring as your predictability.
(When are you going to cut this off topic discussion off Greg?)
Does the role of flaming troll come naturally?
No, your banality brings out the best in me.
You find banality inspiring? How appropriate.
Actaully, you are more like a kid who keeps picking at a scab. If you pick it enough, it bleeds.
As for inspiration, maybe you should try to spend more time trying to inspire people to discuss something, rather than picking at them when they think your topic isn’t worth their time.
You are sorta like the fat kid in an elementary school gym class; no one wants you on their dodgeball team, no matter how many times you jump up and down to get their attention.
*waits for another allusion to the fact he is gay*
Sigh. So predictable.
“You are sorta like the fat kid in an elementary school gym class; no one wants you on their dodgeball team, no matter how many times you jump up and down to get their attention.”
I assume that you’re speaking here with the sort of authority that can only be bestowed by personal experience?
Yeah, I ignored the fat kid all the time in elementary. He was so lazy and grossed me out.
I’m assuming that you have not yet taken up Greg’s offer to write your own posts here? It’s better I guess just to threaten to disrupt others’ comments as you have above.
I thought we had already discussed that on another thread. You know, the one where you asked me if I shave my husband’s back?
Btw, it wouldn’t be disrupting if you just let it go. But, like the annoying fat kid, you are still standing there jumping up and down wishing desperately for some attention from the other kids. Then, when no one does pay attention, or doesn’t give you the type of attention you want, you throw a little fit and call people names.
This is much more fun, because, again, it is so predictable, and you give the exact response I am trying to get.
So, one more time (since you keep asking), I will think about writing for thepolitic once I am finished this semester at school and have moved into the new eco-house (in other words, after Xmas). Furthermore, I will talk to Greg on my terms, not your. Bugging me to write won’t make me change my mind, since, I place absolutely no value in your opinion. When and if that time comes, I will also look at the group of people who are writing for thepolitic and see if I really want to be a part of the group. No one wants to be on a dodgeball team full of scab-picking fatties.
God, you’re boring. Get lost.
This post should have been called “Should I stay or should I go?”
Are you seriously saying you don’t have time to write posts right now because you’re in school? Exactly how much time did you spend responding ~15 times to this post?
Oh, and thanks for the “It is just common sense. Rule exists, follow the rule.” statement. I found it particularly amusing in light of your constant support for gay marriage. The rule existed, but for some reason THAT rule had to be changed instead of followed, as you now recommend.
Fine, is this better? I think I would rather choke on my own vomit than write for the same website as Aaron, who doesn’t really have anything meaninful to say, as George, who repeats himself way too much on a topic that he really doesn’t have a stake in (although, when he wants to, he writes some pretty good posts), or Joel, who thinks it is appropriate to post people’s I.P. addresses to shut them up.
Sheesh, you just had to drag the truth out of me, didn’t you Shane?
Btw, ironic that you responded to my topic, and not Aaron’s in this thread. :o)
I think it’s time for a “Don’t Feed The Trolls” doctrine to come into force with respect to our little friend here. Perhaps then he can re-direct his anger to his brother-in-law where it belongs.
Doctrine, eh? You crack me up, Aaron. It is ironic that you cannot follow your own admonitions to stay on topic. As for my brother-in-law, I think I might just like him better than you.
Jesus, when will Greg just shut this down?
Wah wah teacher, teacher, shut this down the big kids are picking on me, if you can pitch StE, you can catch, suck it up princess.
[...] just read Aaron’s recent post on the Waterloo board’s recent school board meeting. All I can say is that if the gays, [...]
Boring…
[...] some bruising commentary here and here, this interview with top American military brass really tugs at the [...]