Smallholder: A kid is brutally murdered for being gay and you want to distract mention from that horrible reality by pointing to his drug habit?

The “kid” (22 years old) was killed because he had money and drugs. The guys who killed him wanted the money and drugs. The “kid” refused to give up the money and drugs (although he may have proposed trading sexual favors for the money and drugs).

Yes, he was gay. Yes, he was killed. But that doesn’t mean he was killed because he was gay.

Oh, and I don’t support the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act.” All murderers, regardless of the status of their victims, should receive the death penalty.

Mark Buehner:
That monster.

This is hardly commendable, he’s saying it should be put on a referendum, which is a common ploy in many political areas to deny any responsibility for his own positions. He’s trying to pander to both sides at once without having to take a principled stand in either direction, meanwhile he’ll continue to veto anything even remotely pro-gay that comes out of the legislature.

A step in the right direction, and one that should be applauded. However, DP is a far cry from civil unions, not to say marriage, in terms of benefits it allows gay couples, or their children, both of which he continues to resist.

Mark Buehner: “If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide,” Carcieri wrote.

Is the General Assembly delegating its legislative authority nowadays? I though the legislature was elected to write laws, not to conduct polls.

Cheers,

Do we have to teach the American Revolution with the qualifier “but we don’t necessarily support the right of the colonists to engage in treason against their sovereign King”

I dunno, do you know anyone for whom that isn’t a true statement? :) Seems to me that history teaches about what happened–not whether we approve. Lit study, too, involves facts more than values: learning about literary movements, techniques, famous authors/texts, and so on. Maybe you don’t personally “like” Hawthorne but historically he is an important author, so you read his stuff anyway and you learn to recognize the strategies he uses & the aspects of his work that critics have admired.

I think the rule is that children can be taught things that are true, but not false things or normative judgments beyond basic social rules about respecting others.

This makes it impossible to teach any literature or history. Do we have to teach the American Revolution with the qualifier “but we don’t necessarily support the right of the colonists to engage in treason against their sovereign King”?

But after meeting privately Thursday with members of a gay rights group, Carcieri emerged from his Statehouse office and told reporters he would consider backing a domestic partnership system, perhaps one similar to an expansion approved this month by voters in Washington state. It offers gay couples the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

…

A letter Carcieri wrote to lawmakers explaining his veto contained another reference to a domestic partnership system.

“If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnership, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide,” Carcieri wrote.

link

That monster.

Of course, Carcieri would also oppose creating such a status.

Objection. Foundation?

Anatid: But the concept that the earth is 6000 years old? There’s no evidence whatsoever, anywhere in the geological record, that would point to this. The only reason why anyone thinks this is that a vocal minority of folks is blindly following, to the letter and without allowing room for metaphor, the metaphysical speculations of a desert tribe from 4000 years ago.

The reason some “scientists” say there’s no AGW is because they have a vested or personal interest in burning carbon fuels like there’s no tomorrow.

Cheers,

Martha:

[zuch]: Some scientists think the world is 6000 years old and was created in six days, some most don’t. OK or not OK?

Zuch, I’d be ok with that one fix.

I was trying to mirror the previous commenter’s formulation WRT AGW.

Cheers,

Well, to further elaborate, discussion of social issues is perfectly appropriate, and I even think that the teacher can express their own opinions, as long as the teacher is careful to qualify them as such. Teachers might not always stick to this rule, but by and large they try to in my experience, and I seriously doubt there is any public school that has an official policy of teaching kids to support gay marriage. The bond issues is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I would imagine the way it usually works is, in a civics/social studies class, the teacher goes over the items on the ballot, or maybe breaks the class up into groups to report on each ballot issue, maybe asking the students to lay out the pros and cons of each side, have the students discuss them, and encourage civil debate. This is all perfectly appropriate, and I don’t see any good reason to declare gays to be a taboo topic beyond discussion in the context of a class like this, and anti-bullying measures are also appropriate. Keep in mind that if a class has Heather has two Mommies read to them, some of the kids might actually have gay parents, and would appreciate the acknowledgment of the existence of families like theirs. Furthermore, some of the kids might themselves be gay, and treating homosexuality as a taboo topic will only increase the alienation and psychological trauma these kids will experience as they become aware of their sexuality.

Zuch,
Maybe I was glib, I didn’t mean to suggest both sides should necessarily be presented with equal weight, rather the relative proportions should be noted, and the evidence supporting the positions should be mentioned and given the amount of focus appropriate for their relative strength. In the case of evolution versus creationism, creationism should only be mentioned as far as saying “Some people’s religious beliefs contradict evolution. That’s fine, but my job is to teach you the science”. My understanding of the global warming debate is that those who disbelieve in human-caused global warming are a minority, but not quite laughed out of the scientific community.

It takes a very strained reading to interpret this as “it’s okay to teach kids that affirmative action exists”.

Ken Arromdee, don’t strain so much. I said that it was easy to discuss these topics at an age-appropriate level, and it is. When my kids ask about such things as affirmative action, it’s usually because they’ve heard the term somewhere and want to know what it means. e.g., my 6th grader heard another kid call Obama an “affirmative action” president. But it’s not hard to think of ways in which a school might teach that it exists . . . e.g., in history class.

Anatid, you’re right, of course.

I think the rule is that children can be taught things that are true, but not false things or normative judgments beyond basic social rules about respecting others.

The post I was replying to used this reasoning to explain why it’s okay for schools to teach kids “sexism, global warming, affirmative action, even bond issues, at an age-appropriate level.”

It takes a very strained reading to interpret this as “it’s okay to teach kids that affirmative action exists”. It’s obviously saying that it’s okay to teach kids to support affirmative action, bond issues, particular ideas of what is sexist and of how to stop global warming, etc. These are indeed normative judgments.

It’s kinda an apples and oranges sort of thing, zuch.

Global climate change is a fairly recent area of study, and must take into account dozens upon dozens of manmade and planetary factors, such as distribution of continental plates, the planet’s precession in relation to the sun, carbon dioxide and methane emissions, shifting surface albido, and others. It’s complicated, and even the most powerful supercomputers (like EarthSim) are having a hard time extricating the manmade factors from the planetary ones.

Teaching that there are many factors involved, and that different scientists weight them differently, is fine.

But the concept that the earth is 6000 years old? There’s no evidence whatsoever, anywhere in the geological record, that would point to this. The only reason why anyone thinks this is that a vocal minority of folks is blindly following, to the letter and without allowing room for metaphor, the metaphysical speculations of a desert tribe from 4000 years ago. The evidence indicating the actual age of the earth, about ~4.6 billion years, is overwhelming. That number will certain be adjusted as further research techniques develop, but 6000 years is just ridiculous.

What do you want teachers to say? Spend a semester teaching vertebrate evolution, explaining the processes of mineralization and sedimentation and subduction and natural selection and selective adaptation … and then add in, “Oh, hey, if this one particular religious text is true, then all the papers we just had you read may be based on an elaborate hoax by God, in which case forget it all”? By all means, teach that creationism exists, but it belongs in religion class or social studies class, not science class.

… Just saying it’s not the best comparison.

Some scientists think the world is 6000 years old and was created in six days, some most don’t. OK or not OK?

Zuch, I’d be ok with that one fix.

Guy: I think the rule is that children can be taught things that are true, but not false things or normative judgments beyond basic social rules about respecting others.

Ken: What Guy says. (Thanks, Guy.)

An aside: I *was* taught creationism in public school. My 5th grade science teacher spent at least one class period on it. I remember being disturbed because the image of God on the teacher’s transparencies did not match the image of God I had learned from Sunday School. My parents explained that every 5th grade science teacher in the school district had to teach that lesson, but that in our church, we didn’t believe in everything the teacher said. Life went on. As an adult, I think teaching creationism in science class is wrong (because it isn’t science), but we shouldn’t underestimate children’s resilience or parents’ influence.

Guy: Some scientists think said rise is caused by humans, some don’t: ok. Creationism is a legitimate science: not ok.

Some scientists think the world is 6000 years old and was created in six days, some don’t. OK or not OK?

Cheers,

Sure is. The law applies to both straight and gay couples, but, as has been pointed out repeatedly, only gay couples suffer. It reminds me of the quote by Victor Hugo: The law, in all its majesty, prohibits both rich and poor alike from sleeping under the bridges.

Smallholder: “So, Crunchy Frog (if that is your real name), you’re a bigot.”

I wouldn’t say that. CF did say that he would vote for gay marriage at some point, and if he were a bigot, he wouldn’t have said such a thing. So I would have to defend him.

I think there are a lot of people who actually might very well be in favor of SSM, but they are concerned about the effects. They are worried about freedom of religion, what is taught to their kids, etc. I don’t think that there is anything to worry about, but I can certainly understand the concern. And if you get your information and opinions from biased sources, then it would be a concern.

So our job is to counter those perceptions and show them why they are unwarranted. some people don’t want to hear that — some find any defense of gay issues to be ‘combative’ or ‘accusatory’. These people just want gays to disappear so that they don’t have to deal with us anymore. They are also very quick to find some perceived injustice against straights, religions, or whatever, that is the fault of gays. These people will never be persuaded, so I really don’t care if they are pissed off.

People like CF, I do care about, because they see us as regular human beings, although we might have a difference of opinion on things. That’s a critical difference, and one I am very happy to live with.

I think the rule is that children can be taught things that are true, but not false things or normative judgments beyond basic social rules about respecting others. For example, gay people exist: ok. The average temperature of the world is rising: ok. Some scientists think said rise is caused by humans, some don’t: ok. Creationism is a legitimate science: not ok. Gay marriage should be legal: not ok. Let’s have a class discussion about whether gay marriage ought to be legal: ok (by junior high, at least). You shouldn’t bully someone for being gay: ok (at any grade level).

any objections to these?

Often, it’s obvious that she brings these topics up because she wants to know what I think about them.

Your child could just as well bring up questions, want to know your opinion, etc. if the schools taught that there isn’t such a thing as global warming. Your child could just as well do that if taught creationism, or a thousand other things that you probably don’t want taught in schools.

For that matter, wouldn’t it then be okay for your child to be taught that everyone should be a member of the Democratic party? After all it’s something you as a parent could and should discuss with her, and if you’re a good parent she wouldn’t blindly follow the teacher in this matter.

Your line of reasoning here suggests it shouldn’t matter what kids are taught at school at all.

egd wrote:

zuch: Think “Matthew Shepard”.

When did this turn into a discussion about methamphetamine dealers?

Really?

A kid is brutally murdered for being gay and you want to distract mention from that horrible reality by pointing to his drug habit?

Is your point really that it’s okay to kill gay kids if they are also drug users.

Dude, in a thread filled with bigots, you win. Kudos to you.

“there’s a combative, uncomfortable accusatory tone that underlies most issues with a “gay” component to it, and all it ever serves to do is put people on the defensive.”

Well, I’m not uncomfortable or gay. I’m a Christian married straight guy with four kids, a veteran, a farmer, and a hunter. I’m about as redneck as you can get – except that I don’t dislike people who are different from me.

Even though I’m not uncomfortable or gay, I’m happy to oblige on the combative and accusatory front. Those who were persuadable through reason have been persuaded. Those who are still out there fighting a rear guard action for injustice ought to be defensive. As I said to Crunchy Frog, you are bigots – there is not an intellectually defensible reason to support discrimination that hasn’t been demolished here and elsewhere. I’ll accept a religious argument that being gay is wrong – I’m fully aware that religion isn’t amenable to logical debate – I worship an antrhopomorphic supreme being and even eat his flesh every seven days. But when folks use their religion as a basis to argue for discrimination, it just reminds me of the Christian councils in Alabama circa 1960. If your religion says it’s wrong to eat pork, then don’t eat pork. Don’t try to outlaw pork for everybody else.

I’m not sure why you put “gay” in quotes. Some folks on this thread are making a big deal that the law could, just could, apply to some straight people as well. That’s like arguing that the literacy tests used for Black South Carolina veterans in 1946 could, just could, have been used against whites too. They aren’t.

The issue of burial is a pretty random one. But it is a concrete example of the fact that marriage carries with it a host of state sponsored rights and privileges denied to American citizens based on an immutable quality – a quality that doesn’t harm others in the slightest. Solving this one issue won’t end the discrimination against gays – but this one issue does reveal in a concrete way that the discrimination exists. I’ll admit some of the previous posters have engaged in some interesting mental acrobatics in order to deny that any discrimination occurred. Unconvincing acrobatics, but acrobatics nonetheless.

What is interesting is how important it is to some people to find a way to keep gays outside the marriage circle while at the same time denying that there is any discrimination at all.

I don’t understand why the bigots aren’t more honest. If you sincerely believe that God hates fags, just admit that you want to burden them with government-mandated inequality as punishment for their evil ways. At least Reverend Phelps is honest.

“This has been said before on other threads (not by me) by apparently still needs to be repeated — might I respectfully suggest that you take the page in your dictionary with the word ‘bigot’ and toss it in the recycle bin. It’s not helping. All it does is piss me off the same way that I am over being called ‘racist’ for being against Affirmative Action.”

You can be against affirmative action without being a bigot. Sure, lots of people who oppose affirmative action are bigots, but it is entirely possible to oppose affirmative action because you believe it is counterproductive to the goal of racial equality.

Your analogy doesn’t hold for opponents of gay marriage. Saying that a package of rights (some as ridiculous as being able to speak for your dead spouse in a Rhode Island funeral home) shouldn’t be given to gays because they are icky or something isn’t actually arguing for the equality of people. It is, even if you are loathe to admit it and engage in incredible mental acrobats to find a way to frame it in other terms, arguing for inequality and discrimination. Straight people get “x” and gay people don’t “x.”

So, Crunchy Frog (if that is your real name), you’re a bigot.

Oooooh. I said it.

Now, I’m not going to go out and throw rocks at bigots’ houses.

But I am going to clearly say that I find your way of thinking offensive. I suppose that is really why folks are so concerned about keeping their support for ballot initiatives secret – they see the writing on the wall, know they will lose, and are afraid that there will be social stigma attached to them in a generation.

There will.

“Under this law, it could very easily pertain to straight people.”

Uh…not so much.

Sure, it can, and likely does, pertain to straight people who choose not to get married and make no other provisions for end-of-life decisions.

But this is a couple that not only wanted to get married, they DID get married. They had wills. They had powers of attorney, they shared finances. They did everything that it was possible for them do, and yet, the survivor got the runaround.

You honestly think that this would have happened to a straight couple living in Rhode Island that got married in Massachusetts?

It isn’t that this can happen to some straight couples who don’t bother to take the steps that keep it from happening. It is that there is nothing that gay couples can do to keep it from happening. That is a big difference.

And yet, no evidence of any straight couples having to go through it. Strange isn’t it?

” there’s a combative, uncomfortable accusatory tone that underlies most issues with a “gay” component to it, and all it ever serves to do is put people on the defensive”

You mean like how people are often on the defensive when it comes to religious freedom? Apparently, you skip over the combative posts whenever someone argues about how gay rights will destroy religion or destroy marriage in the US.

I agree that sometimes I’m combative, although I try not to be. But when people assume that just because you are gay you are anti-religion and want to foist shove our disgusting lifestyle down everyone’s throats, and that we seek revenge on all who oppose us, well, it’s a little hard to say anything that doens’t come across as combative.

I wonder if you would consider comments such as these ‘combative’: ” but Dale Carpenter should hang his head in shame also.” “Despite your dearest wishes, the story is not about gayness or gaydom” “s that what all the ravers here want for their own children?” “ou might want to ditch the Gay Pride freak shows as well. If orientation is as immutable as left-handedness, then what’s to be proud of?”

egd: When did this turn into a discussion about methamphetamine dealers?

I don’t know, and I don’t like it. But enough about you … can we get back to the discussion?

Cheers,

zuch: I already addressed this here. Pay attention.

Well if you’re not going to be consistent in your arguments, then I don’t really see any point in continuing this discussion.

zuch: Think “Matthew Shepard”.

When did this turn into a discussion about methamphetamine dealers?

“It is, and they shouldn’t, at least until well into high school.Sorry, but I don’t need my (now, but this started much earlier) 6th-grader lecturing me on AGW, or Affirmative Action, or why I should vote to approve the next school bond measure.Put that energy into the 3 R’s and leave partisan political causes well out of it.”

I was surprised by this comment. Lately, my 4th grader has been talking a lot about global warming. Her concern reassures me that her science lessons are being related to real life issues that she sees on tv anyway. I like knowing what she is thinking, and I like being able to correct her when necessary (no, it’s not because of global warming that it’s hot in the summer; no, it’s not appropriate for you to criticize the Sunday School teacher for “killing trees”; hey, speaking of global warming, how about turning off some of these lights?). Often, it’s obvious that she brings these topics up because she wants to know what I think about them.

“I’d rather talk to my kids about what they saw in the books and expose them to other viewpoints as well. Then let them form their own opinions about how they feel and who they are.”

Exactly. Responsible parenting involves talking with kids about about important issues, and it’s not hard to discuss sexism, global warming, affirmative action, even bond issues, at an age-appropriate level. Why would anyone want to delay these conversations until high school? By then, our teens will probably know everything and not see a point in talking to us.

If you think about it that means ~28-32% of the eligible voters against, ~23-28% for, and %40-50 abstaining. Since we don’t know why or how the abstaining plurality did not vote, we can hardly infer that a majority of the population is against gay marriage (the converse is also true).

Crunchy Frog:
It is, and they shouldn’t, at least until well into high school.Sorry, but I don’t need my (now, but this started much earlier) 6th-grader lecturing me on AGW, or Affirmative Action, or why I should vote to approve the next school bond measure.Put that energy into the 3 R’s and leave partisan political causes well out of it.

I actually did a double-take when I read this. I’ve never seen the specific word “partisan” used before to describe mentioning homosexuality in classrooms. When I grew up, everyone was pretty blase – some kids had two mommies or two daddies, and we didn’t think anything of it. When we were 12-14 (sorry, if you wait till “well into high school” then you’ve missed the bus) it turned out that some of the boys liked boys and some of the girls liked girls, or liked both. Gay, bi, and straight kids alike dated, gossiped, had relationships, made fun of each other.

Simply knowing that homosexuality exists isn’t going to make your straight kid suddenly turn gay, or put on a leather thong and walk in a parade. It’s simply exposing your kid to a fact of life (that, from the sound of it, he isn’t getting at home) that will help him understand a rather confusing world as he develops.

Calling this fact of life “partisan” seems about as arbitrary as calling the Krebs cycle in biology class partisan. (If you don’t know what the Krebs cycle is, wait till your kid takes AP Biology and then s/he can tell you. Bio’s come a long way since you took it in high school or college. Don’t assume that your children can’t learn something you yourself don’t know.)

I’m not trying to attack your view, I’m just trying to share my own perspective, because we clearly have very different backgrounds. To go further, I’ve also understood since I was old enough to make such judgments that the Disney princess cartoons (Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid, etc.) are quite sexist. They contain messages that teach girls that women are supposed to be helpless, passive creatures whose lives aren’t complete without men, and I’d be uncomfortable if a teacher was giving those messages to my kids.

Obviously, not everyone shares this view, and I’m sure most people see nothing wrong with saturating their daughters with princess stories. Most girls love princess stories, and the helpless-princess archetype is common. I’m certainly not going to try and get those books removed from the classrooms. I’d rather talk to my kids about what they saw in the books and expose them to other viewpoints as well. Then let them form their own opinions about how they feel and who they are.

badlaw: Considering all your posts ever consist of is accusations and broad sweeping generalities, capped off by little comments like the one above, I’d say you have very little room to complain about people….

“Physician, heal thyself.”

Cheers,

I’m sorry that you are so upset, but anyone who suggests, without any evidence whatsoever, that this couple staged a death just to prove a point is beyond ridicule.

That wasn’t what I was suggesting. I’m thinking there might be more to the story than what’s being reported, not that this is all staged to prove a point. That would be a ridiculous assertion…which is why you should probably be clear on what someone is suggesting before ridiculing them.

I did say that there are bigots in the world, though I didn’t accuse anyone here. Now , if you disagree and want to say that there are no bigots anywhere, then you are free to do so, but then you would be making the sweeping generalities that you complain about.

This is the kind of silliness I’m talking about.

And I also point out that I have asked twice for instances in which straight people have had this sort of predicament, or had their marriage challenged, and no one, including yourself, have been able to supply such evidence. From that, I conclude that the problem doesn’t exist for straight people, but it does for gays Is that a ‘sweeping generalization’? Then I invite you to prove me wrong. If you can’t, then you are of course free to ignore any posts with my name attached to it.

Under this law, it could very easily pertain to straight people. It had nothing to do with gay people, except that this situation was with a gay couple that wasn’t recognized in a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage. But without next-of-kin and the proper paperwork, a straight, nonmarried could’ve faced a similar problem. Less likely, but still possible. It’s more about the law in place and the denial of legal documents granting medical POA that’s the issue here.

And I practice my freedom to ignore your posts most of the time, but you responded to me with an attitude, which is why I’m responding to you now. Of course, that is exactly what someone who likes to stir the pot would say.

As for starting drama, you might want to complain to Prof. Carpenter, since he is the one who originated the post. I also linked to the relevant article, which several people found helpful for providing more information. I’m sorry that the reality of our lives is so annoying to you, but it’s I think the more people know about it, the more

…the more what?

Why you’re still trying to be passive-aggressive and accuse me of nonsense all to deflect from the fact that you can’t go one comment without being needlessly confrontational (but never admitting that you’re actually confrontational for sport and not because people are just making wildly absurd claims) is astonishing to me.

Nothing like hitting a sweeping generalization with one of your own.

Not a generalization, just an observation. Here’s a sweeping generalization: there’s a combative, uncomfortable accusatory tone that underlies most issues with a “gay” component to it, and all it ever serves to do is put people on the defensive and gives people like you an opportunity to complain about oppression all while blatantly soliciting hostility…hostility that you will then try to pawn off as being anti-gay bigotry or discomfort at the notion of equal rights for gays and lesbians when it’s really hostility for your methods.

After seeing “Milk” I had to wonder what the campaign would have looked like if Harvey Milk had been around to work on it instead of the hopelessly ineffectual people we had this time around.