If this accountability isn’t enough, I think it’s because of what I am starting to suspect of the courts. The decisions, for the most part, seem to reflect what the constituents want, or at the worst a large minority. So this may be judicial activism. So what is a citizenry going to do about it? Rail against the courts for decisions they agree with? If a majority of citizens believe that health care is a right, we’ll probably see the courts follow suit. Sure, there are people who will say, “I personally believe in policy X, but the courts should interpret the law properly and vote against it.” The problem with that is that there seems to be a wide disparity of the interpretation of laws and the relevant constitutions. If it’s a question of judges’ poor or selective interpretations, then perhaps the U.S. Constitution should have specifically said that the courts be filled only by qualified linguistics experts. But even if that happened, I think we would still see interpretations of the Second Amendment that are exact opposites of each other.

The issue of the courts does come up each election. But instead of advocating more accountability, it’s more that people will support a candidate that will appoints judges that agree with their positions or general philosophy, as opposed to someone who will correctly interpret the laws and constitutions. Sure, I hear people say they want judges will correctly interpret the laws, but my sometimes cynical self instead hears the person saying they want judges interpret the laws the way they would interpret them.

So I don’t think it’s the case the courts are not accountable. If anything, the citizenry abrogated the responsibility. A good argument could be made for that. I see other institutions pull some lulus, and I shake my head when I see others let them get away with it, and not even speak out against the institution.

With that logic, we would not have had interracial marriage overturned as “early” as June 12, 1967, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.” -Loving v. Virginia

Question, Pat; if you were a parent, would you want your child involved in a culture and community that is taking children, dressed as sex slaves, to sex fairs where naked and seminaked adults masturbate and have public sex in front of them for an “educational experience”, and who call anyone who opposes their doing so “close-minded”? </blockquote

When I first read this question, the answer was a nobrainer. But after carefully reading it again, you seemed to have loaded it, so it requires a more careful answer.

If the question was, “Would you want your child be involved in an activity in which parents bring their children, dressed up as sex slaves, to sex fairs?”, the answer is, of course not. (That’s how I first read the question.)

But what you seemed to have done is equated gay culture and the community with such activities. If that is the case, then it’s a premise I don’t agree with. In other words, it’s like the “when will you stop beating your spouse?” question.

It does appear that, in San Francisco at least, there is such a gay subculture. So I would not want my child be part of such a subculture.

Despite the exaggerated media that shows the worst of the gay community at times (and as human nature goes, that tends to leave a bigger impression), it doesn’t seem to me that this is the major reason that parents excoriate their gay children. It’s more of a religious objective. In 2008 I no longer give the “because it’s my religion” a pass anymore. A little more rationality must prevail when religious doctrine (real or perceived) is wrong and immoral.

If it’s really the perception that you presented that these parents have, I can almost give it a pass. But when the children do grow up and see that many of them have not, in fact, become part of some reprehensible subculture and become responsible in spite of the parents’ bad behavior. Yet too many times, it doesn’t appear to change their minds. In any case, it’s the parents’ excoriating their children that will more likely (not definitely) would lead their children to be irresponsible adults when they grow up.

Contrast that with Jim’s denunciation of those who criticize gay parents who sexually abuse their children as “slaves and pandering to homophobes”.

However, when you criticize gay and lesbian parents who are dressing their children up as sex slaves, taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having sex with each other, claiming the thing is an “educational experience”, stating that anyone who opposes this is “close-minded”, and receiving the full protection, blessing, and support of the gay community in charge of the event, you are claimed to be “self-loathing”, “pandering to homophobes”, “mentally ill”, and in need of psychiatric “meds”.

However, when you criticize gay and lesbian parents who are dressing their children up as sex slaves, taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having sex with each other, claiming the thing is an “educational experience”, stating that anyone who opposes this is “close-minded”, and receiving the full protection, blessing, and support of the gay community in charge of the event, you are claimed to be “self-loathing”, “pandering to homophobes”, “mentally ill”, and in need of psychiatric “meds”.

However, when you criticize gay and lesbian parents who are dressing their children up as sex slaves, taking them to sex fairs to “show off” in front of naked and semi-naked adults who are masturbating and having sex with each other, claiming the thing is an “educational experience”, stating that anyone who opposes this is “close-minded”, and receiving the full protection, blessing, and support of the gay community in charge of the event, you are claimed to be “self-loathing”, “pandering to homophobes”, “mentally ill”, and in need of psychiatric “meds” — which evidently means that, to normal gay and lesbian people, these actions are not in the least bit wrong.

Or, put differently, Jim thinks it’s more important not to “pander to homophobes” than to criticize, condemn, and stop children from being sexually abused.

Or, put differently, Jim thinks it’s more important not to “pander to homophobes” than to criticize, condemn, and stop children from being sexually abused.

Meanwhile, Jim already knew the story wasn’t fictitious from comment #19 in this very thread, where I posted that very link. He was just engaging in the usual behavior of gay liberals — deny, deceive, and then try to explain themselves by insisting that condemning irresponsible and criminal behavior by gay people is “pandering to homophobes”. Sort of like how gay Democrat and liberal Bonnie Bleskachek claimed that the investigation that found her to have sexually harassed numerous people, punished her subordinates and withheld promotions for refusing to have sex with her, and openly discriminating against non-lesbians and straight men was nothing but “homophobia and sexism”.

That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why it is so hard for gay people to condemn behave that is so obviously depraved and disgusting, and say ‘Not in our name.’

If the organizers of the FSF want to do their thing, why can’t they go to some remote, private area and do it? Why does it have to be on a public street? And why do gay community organizations and publications have to cheer for it?

I hereby demand that you all condemn, denounce, and reject the oppressive government of Myanmar. Until you do, I will consider you unfit to vote.

Jeez, what a drama queen. What connection do any of us have with the government of Myanmar?

Any gay person who feels obligated to go around condemning the behavior of other gay people simply because he is gay is a slave and a panderer to homophobes’ inclination to paint all gay people with one brush. Count me out.

And by refusing to condemn any behavior by any gay people, what does that make you, exactly?

Any gay person who feels obligated to go around condemning the behavior of other gay people simply because he is gay is a slave and a panderer to homophobes’ inclination to paint all gay people with one brush. Count me out.

Jim, no one is expecting you to condemn the actions of leather queens putting dog collars on their children and taking them to the Folsom Street Fair. That’s exactly NDT’s point and you’ve just proved him to be correct. But you should at least admit that the story is not “fictitious”:

http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/004352.html

One of the most shocking aspects of the story is its subtitle: “Parents have mixed feelings about bringing their children to this year’s bondage fest.” Yeah. “Mixed feelings.” Unbelievable.

More to the point, everyone who says that gay people have something to prove are, haha, wrong. Gay people have made their case, and in California at least, they have persuaded a very comfortable majority (51% to 42% in the latest poll) that they are deserving of and ready for the right to marry.

This is an excellent point. If a class is judged, then the opinions and actions of ALL individuals that make up that class must be considered, not just that of a few. This naturally results in judging individuals. Of course, it is impractical and wrong to grant rights to some individuals within a law-abiding group but not others, which is why the right to marry is not just granted to a select group of heterosexuals who have passed Big Brother’s (or your favorite ideological group’s) litmus test for marriage.

It is noble to exercise our freedom of speech, so that we may, for example, criticize those who we feel should take a bigger stand in condemning certain behaviors. But to strip that law abiding person of their right to marry, which also strips that right from those (gays) who do fit “the criteria” is shameful and un-American. Who’s going to determine this “criteria” anyway? The compassionate conservatives 4 big gov’t should campaign for a new bureau to help out with this - how about the Department of Marriage Security?

It takes a big ego for a fellow citizen to think they are entitled to deny the right to marry to gay people who may or may not pass their marriage “test,” but would never lobby Congress to pass a law denying that right to straight people who fail it miserably.