Skip to main content

View Diary: NY Mom Writes Anti-Gay Tirade on 7-Year-Old's Birthday Invite (327 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Shame on YOU (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    For promoting that attitude.  Let me explain simply:

    You expect tolerance from others -- but you are unwilling to extend tolerance TO others.

    What message, do you think, that sends?  I will tell you -- in case you are too lazy or self-righteous to think it through:  it sends the message that you only tolerate people who think like you do.

    When conservative christian-type people read things like this (and they do, often), they come to an inescapable conclusion:  liberals lie.  Liberals, they have learned, SAY they believe in tolerance for everyone -- but if a conservative chooses to write something that does not please liberals, those liberals will show their true colors.

    The goal SHOULD be tolerance under the law.  Not forced tolerance by all people.  That is mind control.  As a straight man, I STRONGLY support equal rights for same sex marriage and equal protection for things like job security and so forth.

    But the woman who wrote a nasty note here did nothing to oppose those things.  She said she would not have her son attend a birthday party because the birthday family offended her.

    Was that in good taste?  No.  Was it offensive?  A little.  But if you cannot tolerate THAT, then it is YOUR PROBLEM, not hers.

    Some people do not like or accept same sex couples.  That is FACT.  If you cannot accept it, then you have two choices:  reject reality or GROW UP.

    You will not convince people to accept gay relationships by ridicule.  All you will do is further entrench their views and strengthen their belief that they have to protect their children from the "gay agenda" -- because if your goal is truly to force everyone to accept same sex couples, that IS an agenda (and a pretty nefarious one at that).

    Accept that the woman is a prick, and move on.

    •  Tolerance and freedom from criticism are not the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SGA, Devolved

      same thing.  We are allowing her to have her viewpoint and her actions, just not without criticism.  No one suggested that refusing the party invitation should be illegal, and most did not suggest she be punished with anything beside disapproval.  Disapproval is how cultures enforce their morals, and she needs the information that hers are obsolete.  
      We tolerate her in that she is still allowed to do what she did.  Personally, I think we should approach her with compassion for her pain rather than with hate, but that's just where I am at this point in my life, not where everyone is.  
      We didn't promise her acceptance.  That's another whole discussion.  

    •  It was not the message that got her noticed. (0+ / 0-)

      It was the HATE with which it was expressed.  If she had simply accepted the invitation, but prepared her son with the fact that the little girl's family was "different," and explained that "we" do not approve of their difference, but only to say so if ASKED for his opinion (actually her opinion), there would have been no issue  Even if she had taken the opportunity to point out LOVINGLY to the girl's Dads that although she did not hate them as people, she believed their "lifestyle" was against God's law, I doubt if they would have made an issue out of that; they probably read that all the time.  It was the expression of HATE, the use of derogatory terms, and so forth, that moved them to send the card to the radio station.  And even then, they were not expressing the desire for anyone to hate the boy's mother, only presenting a lesson on how widespread hatred still is.

      And by the way, unless the two men SAID so, she was making an ASSUMPTION.  Back in the 1990s, when TV and Hollywood were just "beginning" to explore gay characters,  there was a series called "My Two Dads" in which a 12 year old girl was being raised by two STRAIGHT men living together.  The premise was that both of them had been dating the girl's mother 13 years earlier, and she had left town abruptly without telling either of them that she was pregnant.  And the two men did not know each other then, either.  Mom had apparently done well enough financially to raise her daughter comfortably, AND to set up an elaborate provision in her will: since she never knew which man was her baby's father, in the event of her early death, which took place before the first episode, the two possible fathers must move in together and raise "their" daughter to adulthood, after which both the fathers and the grown daughter would share in the mother's estate.  As expected, that made it difficult for both of them to go out with their respective lady friends, but they bonded with their daughter, and as "brother dads" (analogous to "sister wives"), with each other as well.

      So, unless you KNOW that two men, or two women, living together are a couple, don't just "assume" it.  Remember also the "odd couple" of Felix and Oscar.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site