Important Civil Rights Victories Celebrated Today

Like chocolate?

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/cocoa/gxWinter2002.html

http://www.business-humanrights.org/Categories/IndividualCompanies/H/Hershey

And, from http://www.consciouschoice.com/issues/cc1702/livinggreen1702.html

"According to the U.S. State Department, 70 percent of the world’s chocolate comes from the Ivory Coast, Nigeria and Cameroon, where child slave trafficking has been well documented.

However, you can find chocolate that is free from child labor. Just look for chocolate displaying the Fair Trade Certified label. This label appears on coffee, tea and chocolate independently certified as meeting the conditions of ‘fair trade’ by TransFair USA. This nonprofit certification agency ensures that farmers receive a fair price for their goods; work in healthy and environmentally sustainable conditions; and are guaranteed financial and educational support to improve their communities and businesses. TransFair also ensures that the farms it certifies have no child slaves.

You can buy Fair Trade Certified chocolate candy, cocoa mix and baking chocolate from companies like Cocoa Camino (613-235-6122 http://www.cocoacamino.com/) or Dagoba Organic Chocolate (541-664-9030 http://www.dagobachocolate.com/). SERRV International 800- 422-5915, www.serrv.org even has a ‘Divine Chocolate’ fundraising program for schools and nonprofits."

:party: :party: :party:

Well, I feel honored and proud to live so near the site of such an historic event. I couldn’t be happier for these couples.

Robin

This is a political issue. Instead of posting it in the Political thread, I presume Chris wanted it to receive maximum attention by giving it it’s own thread. What are you saying, Andreaz, only happy smiley celebratory faces are allowed here? Any opposing views are to be swept out of sight into some dark place? That’s very civil-libertarian of you.

Already posted the subject on the Political thread, but no takers. So I came to party here. :smiley:

Rick, there are some things one does not wish to touch with someone else’s barge-pole, let alone one’s own…

However… I don’t think it’s just “religious people who believe in the literal interpretation and application of scripture objecting to the gay lifestyle”.

And I don’t think it’s just “religious people” who “try to force their supposedly [divinely-dictated] moral position on everyone else”.

Over on the political thread I noticed this:

Not so very long ago there started debate in parliament to lower the legal age of homosexual consent. My first and continuing reaction to this move is “now I wonder why would a large group of middle-aged male Members of Parliament want to do that?”

One can hold moral views without being influenced by any religious dogma, just as one can have sexual preferences without being influenced by any party political dogma.

I understand Chris was probably attempting irony in his “I’m worred…” post. The irony is that there are likely those who view this “Important Civil Rights Victory Celebration” as the thin of a wedge which in the not too distant future might very well bring about the Platonic concept Chris is currently “darn glad we haven’t embraced” Yet.

Hi Gary. Good points.

My own quote from the Political thread was aimed at Dubya’s religious basis for opposing gay marriage, and his hope to get a constitutional amendment that defines marriage in such a way that would exclude gay partnerships.

I accept that there are other people who, for various other reasons, also find homosexuality baffling or offensive, but my comment referred to the specific political/religious/constitutional issue mentioned above.

As for the age of consent, I think that is simply a common-sense thing. The age of consent should be the same for het or gay sex. It should also be set at an age where it is reasonable to expect all parties to be both physically and psychologically prepared for a sexual relationship and generally able to resist exploitation.

As a father of two girls and a boy I personally reckon that any age under 16 is entirely inappropriate (emotionally, I’d like the age of consent for my own kids to be 30!). As someone who can still remember what it is like to be 16, I personally reckon any age over 16 would be hard to enforce - the patience of a 16 year-old boy wouldn’t take the strain.

As for discrimination on religious, moral or political grounds. If I were gay I doubt I’d be convinced by any reason offered as justification for treating me differently from a het person.

At least we beat out South Africa!

I can remember wondering why the school board here in Alleghany County, NC bothered to sent a small bus of kids to Elkin, NC from here when we had 3 primary schools and 2 high schools operating here. (I have always been a schemer of ways to keep some of my money, ever since I had any in my pocket, lucky enough to be able to hang on to $3 /week after I got a water boy job at the local school construction site for the new high shcool I went to).

I find it sort of strange that the local schools here sort of self-segregate. Go look in a study hall or cafeteria, you can almost see the self imposed “white only”, “black only” and one I tried to break (but the students would tend to wave at someone and move to another table) “teacher’s only” signs on the table.

I just never figured out why my father was as prejucided as he was because he worked with blacks in construction his whole life. He never did “talk” to them as much as lead them in the construction jobs.

If we could just stamp out the slavery left in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Why is something obviously so evil so prevalent in the world, I wonder?

As I worked as a laborer with blacks, I ran my mouth as much with them as anybody, asking about things, why the N word (not Negro) offended them.

My prejudice of them is that as a group, they can’t decide what to call themselves unless it is something misleading such as Afro-American, which seems to me would be an immigrant from Africa that has just obtained US citizenship.

I agree with Redd Foxx that they aren’t black either. More like milk chocolate, dark chocolate, caramel, graham cracker, etc.

The only person I saw that was actually black was from Pakistan, BTW, so I don’t think that label can be clamed by the whatevers.

If they have to notify everybody of their heritage and nationality, why not American-Afro or American Negro which would be much more sensible.

Personally, I am a citizen of the United States of America, and all other citizens are too, whether red, yellow, black, caramel, polka dot (me) or red with polka dots and blisters in the summer (me again).

As far as the homosexual marriage is concerned, it is really pointless. You might be stepping in something you might want to wipe off your shoe. There will be costly laws to prevent it with marriage on the books.

The purpose of marriage is to cause commitment to the protection of the offspring of the union and of course, you know biology, no?

Social studies have shown the absolute best environment for children is having a male role model and a female role model as parents, so (IMHO) the courts and adoption agencies aren’t doing the job they are supposed to do and making serious attempts to place foster/adopted children in the best possible environment when they allow homosexual or single adoption or foster care.

As much as I love kids, I wouldn’t adopt or foster one, being single. I don’t have a wife to show them the proper relationship with the (sometimes) gentler sex.

On slavery…

There is an argument that, since nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned (and in fact the Bible seems to actively endorse it, an argument used by those who supported the slave trade), it was the support and encouragement of the Church which permitted and indeed promoted slavery. Indeed, it wasn’t until an educated slave, “converted” to Christianity, began writing (in English) of his despicable treatment that the popular views on slavery in the UK began to change in favour of today’s “obviously so evil”.


:slight_smile: A sentiment fathers everywhere will doubtless recognise!

Of course. However, I’m sure there are others of other persuasions with other lifestyle preferences who are at present saying exactly the same thing, and awaiting, perhaps hastening, the day when they too can celebrate their ‘civil rights victory’…

Perhaps it’s because I’m getting older, but these days I’m more and more often reminded of the decline and fall of the Roman empire, and the increasing number of latter day parallels between our extant ‘Civilisation’ and that extinct one.

Actually Gary, my message was primarily for CtWhistler as I was able to connect with the views expressed. It also gave me a chance to talk about my boys who are so dear to me…in the hopes of receiving back a kind word from someone on a subject dear to me.

As for ordering all of you with opinions to the Political Thread…that was just a joke…and I assumed it would be taken as such.

In answer to your question…YES…I would like to see alot of happy smily faces and happy stories because I feel that is what Chris intended for this thread. It seems to me it was meant to be a message of celebration.

I have to remind myself to stop attempting to post on these threads. I just seem to get bashed every time I try. I guess I am just not sophisticated enough for the likes of you.

It’s a shame that the major theme of all religions (and I think the ones that doesn’t have it as the major one is a valid religion) the “Golden Rule”. Roughly, treat everyone just like you would like to be treated by anyone else.

Andreaz…Me sophisticated? I’ve never been called that before, and I’m far from it! :slight_smile:

And I’m sorry if you didn’t receive the kind words you were hoping for from me and perhaps others, but I’m sure with your personal experience you must be well acquainted with all the opposing views, far more so than me I’ve no doubt.

I don’t think there’s any subject on these boards that won’t attract a vast spectrum of views, and no matter what Chris originally intended when he posted this thread outside of the Political one (and I don’t blame him, I seldom lurk in there) I think it’d be naive to expect nothing but happy party-faces by way of reply.

I have my own views, and I refrained from mentioning them until I saw your ‘joke’, which I admit I totally failed to get, and hence my post, and perhaps hence others. It’s sometimes difficult to convey humour in writing, p’raps one of those smiley faces would’ve helped unsophisticated me understand that you were speaking tongue-in-cheek.

I made a post expressing sympathy for victims of the bombings in Spain..and was mortified to see that the very first reply was ‘political’…triggering even more polarised political replies… guess that’s the forum for you.

Seems so. I don’t think it’s so of every participant, but there’s certainly that aspect.

Such is the way of BBS life. If you want information specific BBS, you need a strict benevolent dictator (with the time to be so and the hide to take the bile from the folk he tees off with locks and deletions and editings), or you have a sort of loose, rambling, anything goes, depending upon adults to act like adults sort of like this and the uilleann boards.

I have seen boards ruined by tightening up wrongly and losing their most valuable help and improved by opening a new forum and insisting that they be placed properly for their discussions.

It all takes a lot of moderator time, and good communications to run a great medium, otherwise, learn to page and skim and think twice about hitting the submit.

Don’t stop posting Andrea. Your love for your boys shines through and I wish you and them great joy and happiness.

Dear Gary,
Thank you for your thoughful comments. I’m glad to have a discussion here, along with the strong and simple support.

I believe that allowing grown adults to choose with which other grown adults they legally express their love and commitment, even if they are the same sex, is no more harmful to anyone than allowing couples of differing skin pigmentation to legally express their love and commitment. Obviously there are a lot of people, probably the majority of the world, who are strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, and probably an almost equal group who are opposed to marriage between people with different skin color.

For a long time marriage between people with different skin pigmentation was illegal in most of the world. In the US many people feared that marriage between people of different pigmentation would lead to the creation of a new “race” of inferior, somehow monstrous beings, and that society would be irrevocably eroded and the sanctity of marriage defiled. Despite these fears and the fierce fight against the legalization of marriage between people of different skin pigmentation, such marriage eventually became legal and all those fears have been demonstrated to be foolish. I think the same thing will happen with same-sex marriage. There are thousands upon thousands of same-sex couples within the US and around the world. I have yet to see evidence of these relationships degrading society or posing a danger to anybody. I do not expect that we will. Obviously, many people think differently. I respect their opinions, though I don’t agree with them.

You brought up my statement about Plato advocating sex with young boys. I thought someone might and you are quite keene for having done so. One of the main arguements of the anti-same-sex-marriage camp is that by allowing same-sex marriage we are opening up the door to other sorts of sexual relationships including polygamy, incest, pedophilia and beastiality. We could be, I suppose, and society and the legal system will decide on those issues. My opposition to pedophilia is that the children are , in my mind, definitely being harmed and exploited by older, more powerful figures, against whom they may have very few defenses physically, intellectually and emotionally. The power dynamic is unequal and unfair. I won’t go into literature demonstrating this, but if you are interested there is plenty to be found. Now, I’m sure there are lots of holes in my arguement. I invite you to explore them, but I might not be able to write back for a few days since I am supposed to be finishing up my masters thesis on the USA and the International Criminal Court. I’m sure many other people can explain my arguement more articulately than I have.

As for the other fears, of this leading to legal polygamy, incest and beastiality, I’m not quite sure what to say. Honestly, I don’t see any reason to oppose polygamy except religious concerns (thoughmost of the men in the Bible had many wives and concubines). As for incest, I don’t oppose it on moral grounds between consenting adults. I don’t see any reason I should. Incest involving children is a completely different issue and follows the same arguement as that against pedophilia, for that is what it is but with even more dangerous power dynamics. I worry also about the genetic consequences, but I don’t know enough about that to make an informed statement. I don’t think I want to adress the beastiality question here, but I think I can safely say that it will never happen. I could be wrong.

In the end, yes, this thread is political, but my intention was to allow the political discussion to take place in the politics thread and the kindness, love and support to happen in this thread. The political discussion is happening all over the place… I just want to send a little bit of love to those finally able to legally express their love for eachother.
In the end, the debate is summarized by two pictures I saw from the festivities at City Hall in Cambridge. The first picture showed two woman in their late 50s who had been together for most of their lives, finally married, beaming with joy and elation, surrounded by thousands of cheering, happy, loving supporters joined together in pure joy. The second picture showed the protestors. The woman leading the protest, her face contorted with anger and hatred as she screamed slurs at the new couples, wore a shirt that said “GOD HATES FAGS .COM” and waved a sign depicting a lesbian couple as pigs.

I would much rather support love than hate. Love triumphs hatred time and time again.

I’ll stand by love until the end.
Chris

And about contemporary slavery… this is, unfortunately, my specialty.
There are 27 million people in slavery today - more than ever before in the history of the world.
For more information please check out Anti-Slavery International and the American Anti-Slavery Group.

My direct ancestor, James deWolf, was the most notorious and succesful slave trader in the history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. His success as a slave trader made him the second richest man in the USA and eventually made him a senator. He was so powerful that even after slavery was officially made illegal he was able to negotiate a special arrangement with the US government to continue his trade. One would think that eventually, at some point in the development of human culture, we would begin to place kindness, freedom and dignity above our own greed. Amazingly the situation is even worse in today’s world than it was when deWolf was sending his prisoners across the Atlantic in floating coffins. The difference is that today, even with 27 million slaves in the world, most of us don’t even know it exists.

Best,
Chris

Chris, thank you for an excellent post; you expressed your feelings and beliefs well, and courageously too, imho. My respects to you.

Perhaps as I get older I’m becoming more and more cynical. I really don’t have much faith in 'society and the legal system’s abilities to make decisions on what are essentially issues of personal morality, or personal beliefs, because invariably such decisions are based on what is ‘felt to be popular’ or ‘the right thing to do’ at the time, without consideration for long-term consequences.

For example, I still find it astonishing that food containing genetically-modified material is openly on sale in our supermarkets, or that genetically-modified crops were grown at all in the open air… or that a new ‘stem cell bank’ has today been opened here in the UK… these are ‘moral issues’, I believe, and decisions have already been made on these by ‘society and the legal system’.

I have no particular axe to grind, and I like to think I have no prejudices, or at least none which cause another person harm or hurt. I just didn’t feel like cheering and throwing a party over the news from Ma., and was staggered by what I (mistakenly, it now appears) took to be enormous hypocrisy when on the one hand a fellow chiffster was celebrating a ‘civil rights victory’ and on the other was attempting to censor any dissenting views.

But for my failing to get Andreaz’s ‘joke’, I doubt I would’ve have posted, being content mostly to ponder, as I’ve said.

Best of luck with your thesis, Chris, and thank you for taking the time out to explain the post outside of the Political thread. Please don’t distract yourself from your work, which is far more important to you (and likely to the future) than anything I may have to say on this subject (which has already been said, actually).

Just look at women’s rights in places that allow legal pologamy and I think I could definately see many reasons to oppose polygamy.

The Chinese (or was it Japanese?) pictogram for trouble is two women under one roof, BTW. Would you marry Lisa Monelli (assuming you are male and heterosexual) as her 4th husband, also assuming that her latest husband’s accusations are correct? In the country Amazonia? (reverse sexes with a pure muslim country for the effects I am trying to illustrate).

With todays crazyness, would you like to make a 1,000 to 1 bet that legal beastiality would not happen in 10 years? I have a dollar I could spare if I lose.

Yes, Andrea, I should know better by now, too.

I do have to point out a few things, particularly to fancypiper. If the primary purpose of marriage is support of offspring, then the marriages of people who cannot or choose not to have offspring should be terminated. I also doubt that many of the over 1000 federal laws (in the U.S.) and several hundred state laws (in most U.S. states) that accord special treatment to married people are related to children.

Studies do not in fact prove that kids do better with a father and mother. Studies prove kids do better in a loving environment, and the support of two parents – same sex or opposite – is better than the support of one. (Btw, my former partner and I raised two happy healthy kids, now both parents themselves).

Last, homosexuality is no more a preference than heterosexuality is. It’s an orientation. Most of the gay people I know never felt we had a choice in the matter.

And now, back to what I get paid to do :slight_smile: . . .

Tery

This is moral relativism in its purest form. As its offered sincerely, I humbly and politely disagree. At some point, we define ourselves, our actions and our institutions for various reasons; moral, scientific, genetic and by other standards and purposes.

By “not being sure what to say” about these issues, the door is opened for anything.

In my view, some things are wrong. Incest is wrong. Pedophilia is wrong. Bestiality is wrong. At the risk of making someone “feel bad” for following their inner urges to outward expression, society makes rules to protect itself, genetically and otherwise.

I choose to define marriage and the use of that term, as reserved for male-female unions. I don’t feel as strongly against gay marriage as I do these other things, but I would prefer to stick with “civil union” designations and marriage-type of rights.

I kept out of this thread because it was so feel-good that I didn’t want to spoil the party and I do think that the former cause for celebration, Brown vs. Board was and remains important in our history. I believe gay activists are splintering their support among victim groups by insisting on marriage rather than civil unions. The ACLU’s continued support for NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, is also damaging to their cause in the end.

Why can’t it be good enough to have full rights under civil unions? Why do activists push the envelope and ask the whole world to re-define itself? To me, this is having the cake and eating it too.