Grandfather deserves award for taking in his gay grandson !

alj wrote:

Just saying that the letter isn't as important to a lot of responders as the issue involved, that most people have reacted to the issue, based on their own feelings, rather than on the facts behind it.

Yes, I agree, Ann. The irony is that the letter is being used to stir up hatred on a facebook page, FCKH8, that's run by a website selling T-shirts with slogans against hate: "Equality Tees Against H8!"

LC wrote:

I'm starting to weary of these Tolerance Nazis myself.

I wearied of them a long time ago.

I am against anything that generates hatred and venom.  I know it sounds trite, but "love is the answer to everything."  It really is.  Hate is the key to destruction and misery, whatever the source.

My stepmother always said hating someone is like handing them a hot coal, you are burned first and likely more permanently.

She also said that harboring hate took up space that could otherwise be filled with love.  Sometimes I just miss her so very much.

Your stepmother was very wise.

Shelagh wrote:

alj wrote:

Just saying that the letter isn't as important to a lot of responders as the issue involved, that most people have reacted to the issue, based on their own feelings, rather than on the facts behind it.

Yes, I agree, Ann. The irony is that the letter is being used to stir up hatred on a facebook page, FCKH8, that's run by a website selling T-shirts with slogans against hate: "Equality Tees Against H8!"

well, once again I managed to delet a response before I managed to post it.  I will try again.

I see the irony, Shelagh., and I don't agree with the idea that this grandfather, if he and his letter are real, ought to win grandfather of the year.  I might feel differently if he had managed to reconcile the mother and son, rather than choosing one over the other.

That being said, part of my problem with all this is that I don't see the problem.  I do mot understand why the behavior of rwo individuals in their relationship with each other is any of our business.  Whom are they hurting?  Why bother to care?  What is it about these behaviors that is so threatening to the rest of us?

And yet, many people do care, and some of those who care, do hate.  Why?  Why was there a need for this H8 proposition in the first place?  It is easy for me to see the irony in the name, and I can't help but get why it was picked up by the victims of that hatred, and an attempt made to put it all back on the perps.

So now, the hating is on both sides, and the rest of us seem to feel the need to take sides on something that seems to me to be a non-issue.

It's like, we have to have somebody to hate.

Racial hatred is out of favor, thank God. We've managed to make smoking an abomination, so now, the focus is on gay couples who want to celebrate their commitment to each other.  What is the sidestream effect of that?

I know so many people who were my friends before they came out.  They are still the same people they were before  So, they want to marry.  So what?  I don't understand the threat. Who they are has nothing to do with me, so why make it my problem?

This is not the same response I wrote the first time, but I think it expresses the same sentiments, so I am going to his send before I lose it again.

People can set up their own traditions; they don't have to be gay. If gay couples want to legally join together to share their income and possessions, then they should set up their own way of doing so. Marriage is for a man and a woman. From Latin, marītāre means to provide with a husband or wife. Since a gay couple is not made up of a husband and wife, they should adopt a term that better expresses their union. The Latin particeps means sharer/partaker or partner. A variation of this Latin word, appropriate for gay couples, might be parity or something similar.

FCKH8 publishing the letter is shooting themselves in the foot. It highlights the real reason (that gay people try to avoid) why parents are so disappointed when their child is the gay one (it's supposed to happen to someone else). Parents want to become grandparents. It's genetically programmed into them. Gay children are less likely to become parents and have to adopt in order to do so. Whether grandparents admit it or not, adopted grandchildren, although loved and appreciated just as much as biological grandchildren, are second best. Not second best in a second rate sense, but in a second choice sense. Given the choice, grandparents would prefer their grandchildren to be biologically related to them.

I agree, however  I am not gay.

To me...here I go...People who are gay cannot reproduce.  Why do they want it both ways?  Two women or two men cannot reproduce.  That is the way of the world.  So, to me, if you are gay, you give up the option to reproduce.. Simple.

Actually, they can, sort of, with surrogates and/or artificial insemination, so that one parent is the actual parent. And if they have more than one child, they can switch, so that each can have a child that is his or her own.

The problem in most places, civil cereminies and agreements do not have the same rights as marriage. I still don't understand why that is a problem.

I am not gay either, but have known couples who were, and have seen the pain of a survivor who was blocked from inheriting her partner's estate, in spite of a wil, when the partners' relatives contested the will, and won, using the argument that the relationship kept their relative from living a "normal" life.

But the problem won't be solved by increasing the animosity, aand whether I understand it isn't going to make a big difference.

Three days ago, David Cameron admitted that forcing through the gay marriage law had been the biggest mistake of his political career:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442206/David-Cameron-I-wish-I-hadnt-forced-gay-marriage-law.html

Laws won't change instincts or characteristics of people.  My take on a free society is to let people be people.  Some want to regulate the human body, especially with women.  I get the impression that those who are opposed to sex are themselves sexless and are jealous of those who are still functioning.  Getting old may reduce the sex urge and that is natural.  When it affects the mind where one can't dream and remember the days of romance, that is sad.

Opposed to sex?  

Abe F. March wrote:

Laws won't change instincts or characteristics of people. 

Who would want them to change? We are not defined by our sexual preferences. We are defined by the people we are: caring, kind, thoughtful, considerate, loving, faithful, law-abiding. Not everyone has these characteristics. Inconsiderate people will not turn into considerate people if they change their sexual preferences. A creep is a creep, no matter who he or she sleeps with.

It's interesting that Cameron is blaming his support of gay marriage for the rise of UKIP. Everything I've read about that party suggests that the astonishing displacement of the indigenous British (along w/ its minority Afro-Caribbean population) that Labor caused with its massive immigration policies gave rise to UKIP. And anytime anyone said anything about it, Labor screamed "racist!" at them. That article mentions "racist" too, but not about that, about, oddly, gay marriage support.

LC wrote:

It's interesting that Cameron is blaming his support of gay marriage for the rise of UKIP.

That's news to me. Where did you read that?

"Another constituency chairman said: ‘Feelings were running very high. We told him that we were losing good members to Ukip over gay marriage which was when he did his mea culpa. The trouble, is the damage is already done as I’ve lost dozens of members from my association.’"

Since when was the Prime Minister a constituency chairman?

This thread is about a false letter, no need to add to the false reporting.

<<  We told him that we were losing good members to Ukip over gay marriage which was when he did his mea culpa.   >>


Obviously he thinks people are leaving HIS party to go to UKIP because of his support for gay marriage! How are YOU interpreting this?

LC wrote:

<<  We told him that we were losing good members to Ukip over gay marriage which was when he did his mea culpa.   >>


Obviously he thinks people are leaving HIS party to go to UKIP because of his support for gay marriage! How are YOU interpreting this?

No, it's obvious that the chairman told the PM that party members were becoming disaffected because of the gay marriage bill. He takes the blame for insisting on doing something that the party members were dead against. It could have been any issue that he'd insisted upon. If he wants an overall majority in the next general election, he'll have to put his committed support of gay marriage aside and start listening to the electorate. He's not in office to pursue his own personal beliefs; he's there to represent the views of those who elected him into office.

Agree Shelagh.  That's what our government needs to do.  Listen to the will of the people.
When I said, "Laws won't change instincts or characteristics of people" I was trying to make the point that it is futile to try.  We don't want government to dictate our lives.

I understand, but he's being disingenuous when claiming people are joining UKIP because of his gay marriage support. Every single thing I've read about UKIP suggests people support it because they're angry about immigration. I'm sure some are angry about his gay marriage support,  I just haven't seen the press about it. He should have left UKIP out when crying over his mistake about supporting gay marriage. It was a non-sequitur.

And of course politicians should represent the views of those who elected them, not their personal beliefs, but here we get the exact opposite with so many of them. Florida's Marco Rubio took a hit because he pretended to support our laws regarding national boundaries, then surprised everyone by joining the Democrats as a huge amnesty supporter. There are many other examples.

Abe F. March wrote:

Agree Shelagh.  That's what our government needs to do.  Listen to the will of the people.
When I said, "Laws won't change instincts or characteristics of people" I was trying to make the point that it is futile to try.  We don't want government to dictate our lives.

And what is "the will of the people"? What is the US government trying to dictate that you are opposed to? Are you speaking specifically to the concept of same-sex marriage?

In the past, your posts and opinions have expressed a primarily liberal perspective, yet the statement, "We don't want the government to dictate our lives" sounds radically conservative.

If you are referring to gay marriage, how does that concept affect your life?

LOL, right after I posted that about Rubio, this showed up in my newsfeed:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/06/Rubio-Approval-Ratings-Continue-to-Drop

BTW, I read UK media a lot because they give better coverage of what's going on in the US than our own shitty media. But about Britian, I see lots of stuff like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9825269/More-than-3000-foreign-criminals-fighting-deportation.html

Don't remember reading anything about people angry about gays.

From the comments on the Rubio article -lol

"Drop him in the water off of the keys and let him swim home to Cuba. It is only 90 miles as the jelly fish drifts."

Are you using the Telegraph as an example of unbiased news?

I read UK Mail, Telegraph, and whatever else floats across my screen. It's probably less biased than CNN or MSNBC. I see stuff covered in it that I didn't know about due to the poor coverage here.

Whenever a British paper runs a story about Ed Miliband apologizing about the out of control immigration the Labor party brought in, there are literally thousands of comments before the commenting is disabled. UKIP is referenced heavily throughout. Like, "Shut yer gob, Ed, it's too late, UKIP all the way." LOL Don't see anything like that on gay articles (can't remember even reading any gay articles).

70% of Tory backbenchers did not support the PM over gay marriage: