Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Putit Right
Kanagawa, Japan
I am probably antipodal to 99% of the other members of this .org (not only geographically but also politically ;-). E.g., I favor continuity over 'change'; I advocate government abstention over intervention in personal, social, and economic affairs; I abhor federal laws that abridge or expropriate states' rights; and I am a sceptic when it comes to such popular 'progressive' issues as 'global warming', homosexual 'marriage', 'separation' of Church and State, and the 'rights' of illegal immigrants and suspected terrorist detainees.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.
-- John Stuart Mill
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Let's work together towards deeper understanding of the issues.
Recent Activity
-
Putit commented on the article |Your lifestyle is your business--as long as you keep it that way. When you start trying to impose it on those of us who have a different one, that's when you've crossed the line.
-
Putit commented on the article |
I never said I would not be offended. In fact, yes, I am offended by any type of hatred and violence.
My point was there are elements of our society who are just as lividly offended by open sexuality, hetero- OR homo-. Are they not just as deserving of our respect; and are their beliefs not just as deserving of our tolerance?
Political correctness says if we don't completely accept or agree with absolutely everything somebody says or does and that person happens to be openly homosexual, then we're homophobes or hate-mongers; but that same political "correctness" does not extend to those who dare to have a different opinion or set of values.
Go back and look at the hatred, bile, and slander my very civil comment and question unleashed. Is that the way you think homosexuals will gain the acceptance they demand? Well I don't think so.
-
Putit commented on the article |
Thanks guys and gals for all the sermons, insults, and personal assaults, but they bore me silly: As I said, I've heard them all before.
My question was, "If you think [what Adam Lambert did] was an admirable thing to do, please explain to me what was noble and good about it." As nobody bothered to answer it I am left to assume the answer must be, "Nothing!".
-
Putit commented on the article |
I'm not a big Peggy Noonan fan, but--full disclosure--I am at least as conservative as her.
Her article, though, if you look carefully at its headline, was not about Adam Lambert; it was about the controversy he caused with his extraordinarily inappropriate performance. If it were simply about Adam Lambert, I'd have to say I love his talent and his musical genius; but I despised his performance (which I watched after the fact on YouTube).
The article is about imposing in-your-face lifestyle choices that should be personal on people who have totally different--maybe opposite--values and morals than those represented by Lambert's performance. It is about throwing all-but-graphic sexuality into a program whose audience includes a high ratio of pre-teens. It is about forcing a majority of the population to accept the values, if one can call them that, of a small minority.
Judging from the majority of comments in this thread, most of you would be lividly offended by a song on the same music program that advocated gay-bashing, or violence against homosexuals. Take a good look at what Adam Lambert did and the venue he chose to do it in and justify that. If you think that was an admirable thing to do, please explain to me what was noble and good about it. If not, do us the favor of not irrationally assaulting anyone who doesn't accept your own narrow view of society.
If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you wish to respond to my message, please think first. Go back and read Noonan's article again and then come back and respond to her points and/or to mine. If you just want to call us names and attempt to deny the message by maligning our character and intelligence, don't waste your time: We've heard it all before. That's the way people who have nothing intelligent to say engage in what they mistakenly believe is intellectual debate.
-
Putit commented on the article |The article is about the quality of food in school cafeterias; but the comment was about "the ridiculous sports facilities that a lot of the public schools have".
Whether sports facilities are ridiculous or not, and how elaborate or spartan they are, is irrelevant to the school lunches. The funds for building facilities are separate and distinct from the funds for providing meals. It is ridiculous to think that building or not building sports facilities will in any way affect the quality of school lunches.
As for what gets put into or cut from school budgets, that is generally decided within the local school district is it not? Our grandiose opinions from the grandstands on what should or should not be included is not really going to make a big difference is it?
By the way, as far as I know few if any schools have facilities specifically for musical performances. Aren't musical performances usually done at either shared general purpose auditoriums or shared athletic facilities? Sorry my attempt at irony was not appreciated.
-
Putit commented on the article |
I remember years ago when the urban legend joke in my neighborhood was that once you ate at Jack-in-the-Box [you can plug in the name of your favorite fast food chain] the first time and--inevitably--got sick, you were then immune and you could then eat there all you wanted.
I'm sorry to learn that joke is now more relevant to the public school cafeterias.
-
Putit commented on the article |
That's right Erin: Let's get rid of all those ridiculous sports facilities. Who needs 'em?! Kids should be well fed and the exercise be hanged!
Oh, and by the way, while we're at it, let's get rid of all those ridiculous music programs too. They won't have a place to perform anyway.
-
Putit commented on the article |Hey, all, it's been fun but I have a lot of work to do so let me sign off this discussion with a few comments.
1. Thankfully, I don't live in California, and I don't want to "marry" somebody of the same sex, so the outcome of the Prop 8 kerfuffle is inconsequential to me personally.
2. If you'll look through my posts you'll see that not once did I ever express disapproval or disrespect for either homosexuals or same-sex unions--and you never will hear me do so. You will also notice that several people wrongly accused me of doing so (or at least thinking it).To those of you who don't jump to conclusions and make invalid assumptions, keep up the good work; to those of you who are too quick to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with you--if you can manage to figure out who you are--YOU are the problem. Stick to the issues and leave the labeling and name-calling out of it.
3. The opinion I have been expressing is very simple: if extremists gave up their stubborn insistence on using the word 'marriage' in the same phrase as 'same sex', 'gay', or whatever, acceptance would come a lot quicker and easier.
-------
We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and even if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. -- John Stuart Mill -
Putit commented on the article |
Damon,
It has nothing to do with morality.
The traditional definition is a union between a man and a woman. It has not been rewritten. (As I've said elsewhere, laws regarding its legal recognition do not change the definition.)
Now homosexuals want to rewrite the definition to deny the male-female aspect.My opinion is that that is just silly.
But the tyrannical minority prohibits that opinion and marginalizes or belittles anyone who expresses it. Let me ask you a question. Please give this some thought and don't answer it with more cliches and platitudes: What is a "homophobe"? -
Putit commented on the article |
I notice you don't include any Asian countries, or any Middle Eastern ones (same-sex marriage will probably NEVER be legal in Israel, though they have mandated recognition of same-sex unions from other countries), or any Central or South American countries, or any African countries besides South Africa.
YOU neglect to realize that the US and the EU (plus the coasts of Canada and the tip of Africa) do not represent "all over the world".
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits