en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/764670 Comments by smp5120 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/women__trashed/#IDComment70018201 There is very much a culture, so to speak, of women. In other words, there is a distinct female culture. The play made me think of this culture and also allowed me to recognize the global community and identity of women. I thought of this when I was deciding who this play was targeted toward. It was not applicable or relatable to all women. Maybe just American women. But at the same time it was. There are so many different types of women. The American woman, the Muslim woman, the Geisha woman, etc. And even within these female groups, there are individuals with varying struggles and experiences, particularly with identity. But, see, that is the thing. The experiences are individualized but the idea of identity issues is static. Is this issue of identity, or many times body image crises a female thing? A facet of the female culture? I would hate to think that. There are many negative or stereotypical ideas that are of women. Shopping, gossiping, nagging, and of course, image obsessed. I do not want to sound like a radical feminist, at all! However, I think it is important to understand the true culture of women, especially on a global scale. Women represent strength and power. Unfortunately, we are plagued by images and roles we ought to be. We think there is an ideal image for women (which obviously varies from female group to female group) and we play into it. For what reason, I do not know. The identities of women are so different across the global spectrum. In my opinion, we all feel similar though. We know there is a thread going through all of us. A thread that represents such things as motherhood and sisterhood. I wonder if this is because of our emotional nature we can feel this, and by emotional nature, I mean strength. But, to answer the question, there is no ONE woman. No matter our shape, size, or culture we just have special understanding. It is an unexplainable relatedness we feel despite are vast differences. Do men feel this way too, this balance of difference, but overwhelming likeness? All of the comments in class about pressures from other females was weird. For all of the reasons I have listed above, I do not understand why we would do it to each other. Women have made so many gains, so many feats, and have literally kept society going. So, let's try to preserve our culture, and lighten the pressure and restrictions we place ourselves, and other women. Oh, and another thing it is sometimes a disservice to ourselves when we try soo hard to do the "man" thing and act like there is no difference between the genders/sexes, because there is and being a woman is a very special and unique title worth sustaining. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:15:12 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/women__trashed/#IDComment70018201 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/300000-whats-it-mean-to-us__trashed/#IDComment69844633 300,000 is a number I cannot wrap my mind around. It killed 300,000, wounded 300,000, and left over a million homeless. If September 11th did not put it in perspective, I read a comparison to the atomic bombing in Hiroshima recently. The death toll in Haiti was two times the number in Hiroshima. It just is impactful to say the least. I, or we, lost 300,000 of our own people. If there is little I can do or if there is nothing concrete I can get my little hands on, the least I can do is recognize and take the time to consider, understand what is going on. I lend my support and optimism for Haiti. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:30:18 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/300000-whats-it-mean-to-us__trashed/#IDComment69844633 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/letter-from-an-inmate__trashed/#IDComment69843138 I guess what most or many people feel or are thinking is “Compassion? What about sympathy for the friends and family of your victims or your family?” Those are some strong words- “hearts recognition of pain in another.” Is his answer to this questioning that it is a human being thing, meaning they can feel this, too. We are supposed to see it as a human being thing. It is not easy for most people to understand that or agree with it enough to accept this truth. And by this truth, I mean these inmates confessions of genuine reciprocated sympathy among society’s “monsters”. Luckily, I have extensive experience and education of criminal justice, including corrections and prisoner/inmate relations. With this, I have developed an understanding of and belief in prisoner rehabilitation. But, I have trouble balancing my values and morals with this. It is hard to absorb such bold statements about feeling another’s pain when you cannot help but wonder where it was when they did what they did (killing someone). I mean, it kind of seems easy for them to say these things now. Like feelings forced from razor wire fencing and cinder block walling. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 00:16:07 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/letter-from-an-inmate__trashed/#IDComment69843138 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/this-is-totally-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment66259956 I think they have gone too far with this one. I understand the thought that this is symptomatic of a larger problem or process. This may be subjective evidence of a serious problem or spreading of a potential problem. Who would defend this game? How could you defend this game? Well they would probably say- “It is just a game” or “It is free speech” or “It is not hurting anyone.” Just a game? I do not see the contest or challenge, let alone the entertainment value. And don’t say sex as to why it is entertaining because this is just violence. Free speech? I think this would be abuse of the freedom of speech. We have a right to say how we feel, not to play out a twisted fantasy of abuse and disregard for women through a video game. Not hurting anyone? I think of rape victims or that “what if” potential rape victim. After looking at statistics, I have seen that rape is not a serious criminal problem in Japan. Maybe this is why it seems to more allowed, meaning because it being potentially harmful is less likely. I do not want to knock or say anything about the culture this is a part of because I do not know if enough to do that. Does it make us so much better that we would not have this on our shelves? Who is to say that this would not be here. To say it is like Grand Theft Auto or any of these violent games with bad reputations is inaccurate. What Rapelay is, is a step further. (maybe too much further). Does this represent a social belief that it is okay or is just starting the trend of it being acceptable? Maybe it is just a moral issue. I know for me, it is. I am not going to go into a panic and outrage over this. I just think it is wrong. It is not about this enjoyable sex fantasy. It is a representation (fictional or not) of degradation of women. I do not like what it represents and I think playing it is harmful to yourself more than anything. What we channel into our heads or let our minds consider begins to develop in us. And what about when it starts to develop society and what the group feels or thinks? I know, I know my morals do not apply to everyone. I am just having a hard time figuring out why someone would want to play this or why someone would want to make this. I do not like the thought of what this could be in harmful terms or what it means for a society. Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:33:11 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/this-is-totally-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment66259956 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/is-quality-the-question__trashed/#IDComment65679222 I do not think any one who is less qualified or not qualified at all will get into med school JUST because of their racial identity or color. Maybe they are more likely to be picked because they need to add numbers to the minority count, but that is as far as it goes. But, hey, maybe that does happened. I think the point that was missed was that often it is not that unqualified get positions over more qualified individuals. The idea of affirmative action is to put those who seem to have been less considered or are more under represented more of a chance. Like Sam said, putting them at the same starting line. As for nepotism, it is not fair to give a position to a friend or family member if they are not as qualified. I have no problem with affirmative action or nepotism as long the people are deserving and qualified. The point of affirmative action is to extend, broaden, or include minorities in the pool of qualified applicants. Sat, 3 Apr 2010 01:38:24 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/is-quality-the-question__trashed/#IDComment65679222 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/nothing-about-the-census-is-easy__trashed/#IDComment65566966 A term that would or could be inherently racist on its face would never be put on the Census. The term negro is archaic to some. Just SOME though, there are many others that know themselves as to fit into this category. It does not imply or mean they think of themselves as anything bad. It is important to make that clear because to those you dislike the category or title it is because it a "bad" term. It is a reminder of times of segregation and inequality. I see the issue very much from the same viewpoint of Baratunde Thurston. It is very understandable from both points. It is a fact that older Blacks or African Americans use the word negro. If they, who lived in the times of Jim Crow laws, segregated facilities, etc., do not see the term as offensive then why should a generation who has not faced the same overt discrimination. I am not saying I like the word, but it is just a indication of a difference, a difference in racial identity. It is not setting them apart from other Blacks or African Americans. It is simply a tool to ease the survey process, for thousands and thousands of people filling out the form. Everyone must be considered, but like they said in the video, you try to be all inclusive and end up excluding and offending a lot of people. Is it about what we identify ourselves as or what others identify us as? What it comes down to is that it is confusing. This whole race thing is confusing. I do not see a solution. Especially, with the minority population growing and the number of mixed people increasing in number I do not know what can be done, besides leaving a blank box. But then that opens a whole other set of issues. There are going to be those, like the woman on the video, trying to jump on this racial band wagon of sorts. They are going to be saying they are not white because they have a drop of Native American blood in them. Or those like myself, who have a Hispanic parent and a white parent. We look white, but cannot ignore the fact that we are Hispanic or Latino. Are we suppose to just give a broad answer or generalize our identities? The idea of racial identity is so personal and relative that the task of categorizing seems impossible. The one guy in the video said his parents were from Honduras but he would pick African American?? We learned in class that African American was a term for those who can directly trace their origin in America to slavery. So, do people use this word correctly or is it offensive that he considers himself African American? Maybe he was just thinking he identifies with African Americans because they way he grew up. I do not know, but I do not see this issue finding a solution any time soon. Fri, 2 Apr 2010 15:41:20 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/nothing-about-the-census-is-easy__trashed/#IDComment65566966 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment65373655 Without a doubt this is an issue that is very important in terms of how the US shaped demographically. Americas face is changing. With an increase in growth of the number of minorities, I wonder how this will be reflected in terms of equality-economically and socially. This goes both ways. Minorities can face better equality given their high representation in the population and the majority, or whites can face inequality because they are no longer holding their “power”. I wonder, will minorities now make up a good chunk of the middle class? This changes everything. Who is in our work force, in our schools, in our voting booths changes everything about how this country runs. In my opinion, I think an increase in minority population makes for a more diverse nation. Diversity is a good thing, something to be embraced. Fri, 2 Apr 2010 00:39:07 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment65373655 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment64276441 This just goes to show you what our society values or what people THINK is valuable. The video exposes a lot of issues surrounding blacks and their struggles with stereotypes and what others think. To bring back an old study that was conducted during segregation and to see that it is still relevant is pretty eye opening. Why this video is so powerful is because it is young children. It is often hard to get this message across, so to see it in youth is shocking for many. It gets peoples attention because we are more sensitive to youth, but also seeing it at such a young age is remarkable. In reality, it is a problem affecting adults, as well. Overall, the video is educational and really shows just how deeply internalized this horrible stereotypes of "bad" and "good" can be. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:48:58 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment64276441 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-are-all-of-you-thinking-about-asians__trashed/#IDComment64084660 I think that most educated people would know the difference between Asians and Asian Americans. However, I think for many Asians are the least likely to be recognized as American, because of this idea that they are the one group that does not get recognized as “from here”. This is not my opinion, but I think the general point of view. I do not know if I am describing this well, but it is basically the idea that all Asians are seen as immigrants. As we touched on in class with the questions regarding who we would be least likely to vote for as a president and who we would least likely want as our boss or supervisor at work. Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:45:17 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-are-all-of-you-thinking-about-asians__trashed/#IDComment64084660 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/native-hawaiians-ever-think-of-them__trashed/#IDComment64082254 I wonder if people consider this really a political or economic obligation or a moral obligation? Just like the Native Americans, was their own government established or given because they needed it or because it was an apology? When I say moral obligation, I am referring to the idea that the US feels responsible (as they acknowledged in 1993) for the overthrowing their government. It is also striking how unsatisfied they feel. I am not establishing an opinion on whether or they should feel this way. But, I thought the apology was recognition of what happened, but it seems they want more recognition and this is to be in the form of a separate of government. Another question that arises from this is one of constitutionality. Relating this to a race relations course, the question is whether or not this is racist. Granting separate land and government to a specific race is considered discriminatory to some and a violation of the US Constitution. It has also been argued that it violates national unity or E Pluribus Unum, which means “one out of many”. Although not our official national motto, it was at one point and we still put it our coins. It is still relevant and a motto our country lives by. I do not understand the difference between this and the Native Americans having their own government is. Well I do not know if I can call it their own government, or are they loyal to the US and their sovereign tribes. Is that why it is different? Native Americans are still citizens with the same laws, with minor exceptions, and the Hawaiians want a whole different set of laws? I would love to know. Personally, I do not think a group of peoples would ask for discrimination. Also, to me, it is just recognizing a group of people who ORIGINALLY had their own government. They were not part of us to begin with. Of course, they are American citizens and will continue to be if this is passed. It’s a giving back of sorts or restoring. It is not a discriminatory separation. I think it something to acknowledge in a positive light. The Native Hawaiians want to protect their culture and people. They feel they are losing themselves to significant problems such as homelessness. If they know themselves better maybe they can run themselves better. Running themselves can protect them from their disintegration. The people seem to be begging for help and not getting it, so now they just want to be recognized as separate so they can do it themselves. I think government officials are just afraid of having two different powers. I respect tradition very much and I am optimistic for the Native Hawaiians. Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:27:20 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/native-hawaiians-ever-think-of-them__trashed/#IDComment64082254 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-world-is-full-of-surprises__trashed/#IDComment62825163 What I got out of this article was not whether or not it was believable or true, but just another insight to rich, respected culture. I have such an appreciation for tradition and culture and was just fascinated to see that these people have been able to retain facets of the indigenous Jewish religion, or have an actual connection to the early Semites who were exiled. I also learned a new face of Judaism, which is always eye opening. I, like many it seems, had a very stereotypical view who is or that which is Jewish. Overall, I admire their tradition and find it cool that they have traced their ancestry back to Moses’ time. I understand how special that can make them feel. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:44:57 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-world-is-full-of-surprises__trashed/#IDComment62825163 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment62824245 All this effort to try and get more minorities in their school by looking at application processes or admission practices. I think they need to do something about the behavior of their student first. Ya, the minority population is low, that is not so surprising. The surprising thing is the overt racism. But I see what they are saying- the admission process may be where it starts or continues. Why would a minority even want to go to school with these kids? I cannot believe such events are still current in such a liberal state and college atmosphere. I don’t even find their “Compton Cookout” theme anywhere near amusing. And to purposefully do it during Black History Month? It is insensitive. Get a sense of humor. Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:37:33 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/this-is-getting-to-be-too-much__trashed/#IDComment62824245 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment62634240 Also, there really is no defining difference other than the fact that a female would be wearing the tux. It is not like she is dressing inappropriately or violating some sort of dress code. She is wearing what the guys wear. Would have been different if she wore a dress? Or was it just another excuse to get mad at them? Not to mention, I do not know what is more unacceptable or disturbing, a girl wearing a tux or when girls wear overly scantily clad dresses. Personally, I do not have a problem with the visual. I guess I would not be one of those “uncomfortable” students making them leave. I do not know many teens in 2010 that would be. Well maybe in Mississippi. But, what is so uncomfortable? They probably knew she was a lesbian and had a girlfriend, anyways. They see her in school, and maybe even with her girlfriend. Why would it all of sudden be so comfortable? Because of tradition? But, what is tradition, anyways? It seems to have just been a problem for the faculty and administration, which probably still are not okay with this new civil rights movement for LGBT. This would most certainly have not happened when they were in high school. They are products of their generation and times. Or perhaps it is their environment, Mississippi, a place where the Old South feeling is still vibrant. I know it is not fair to categorize an entire state and its people as one thing, but we all know the stereotype. Interesting how they kept using the term “retaliation”. Retaliation is synonymous with revenge. To me, that sounds so harsh. They are getting back at these young teens for what? It is saying something the girls was wrong. What is wrong? I wonder why she even had to ask permission. If Also, what is up with the argument, “distractions to the educational process.” Of prom? What educational process is there in prom? We all know what goes on prom night. Looks what needs to be taught is that lesbians are just as equal as the other students , and the ones who need the education are the close minded administration. I attended an all girls high school. Often times when we had dances girls did not bring date, making a girls night out of it. It would be interesting if they tried to ban same sex dates. I kind of look at them as two girls going to the dance together in the same way girls in my school did. Just cause they are lesbians does not make a difference. I would not be surprised if this became the norm in years to come. Gay men escorting each other to prom and lesbians, as well. It cannot be fought and ignored forever. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:37:49 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment62634240 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/are-whites-the-only-people-willing-to-humiliate-themselves__trashed/#IDComment59688911 I am not trying to look too far into a silly reality show or take it to seriously. But, with a pretty dominant trend occurring people kind of deserve an explanation. Last season's Bachelor did not have one black woman or Hispanic woman. Is this saying that there are no intelligent or attractive black or Hispanic girl that would have a chance with Jake? With over 20 girls and guys, you would just expect more. Are they saying that Jake would not/should not be attracted or interested in marrying (the goal of the show) a black, Hispanic, Asian, etc. girl? I just want to know why it is so hard for these individuals to make into the house. Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:28:36 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/are-whites-the-only-people-willing-to-humiliate-themselves__trashed/#IDComment59688911 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/are-whites-the-only-people-willing-to-humiliate-themselves__trashed/#IDComment59688074 I thought the target audience was more so teenagers, which makes this more interesting. Or maybe this just represents what the actual "Bachelor" or "Bachelorette" requests. Maybe they are not interested in dating outside their. This idea is kind of silly because we know all of these individuals are cast deliberately. This is why i would expect more variety, because this would be more representative of "reality" and more relevant to the target audience. Maybe they are avoiding the issue of inter racial dating all together? I mean it seems to be done for a reason, it has to be considering the numbers. I just want to know why. Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:20:26 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/are-whites-the-only-people-willing-to-humiliate-themselves__trashed/#IDComment59688074 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/why-is-this-racist-really__trashed/#IDComment59684213 I never thought of such a thing. As stated, many people would not and should not pay to see these men play. I was wondering what kind of audience they would draw, or if they would bring a crowd at all. I guess this is mostly because most of the top players or most popular players in the NBA are not white (the vast majority). So what attracts the large audience seems to be what Moose is turning away from. Maybe it is not for the audience, but for the players. I am curious about the demand for this style of basketball. Apparently, there is one if he thinks this a good idea. Anyways, if they want to play a traditional brand of basketball that is cool but maybe they should not say it is just a white thing. Promoting exclusivity, I think, is what CAN make this racist. If it all about the way the game is played then race should not matter. And I understand the "niche" idea, but calling it "white only" is wrong. Maybe it will naturally attract a mostly white folks, but you cannot say others are not allowed. The door should be open because once you close you have to find a reason to explain why it is. Usually there is not a valid one or one that does not seem racist. Moose does not seem to validate the closing of the door, either. I really did not like the quote from Moose. It is never fair to generalize. What I mean is that Moose is saying something like "oh ALL of today's NBA players bring these problems". Wrong. And unfair. I also was confused when I read the quote because I thought it was about the style of playing, but when issues like "guns" and "attacking fans in the stands" was brought up I did not get the feeling it was about style anymore. My last thought rests on the idea of going back to the "traditional" way the game was played. I can kind of understand this. I mean the game has changed a lot. But, I did not attribute this to race or think that the way to get back to the tradition was to have a "white only" league. I wonder if Moose considers such players as Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan can play the "traditional" game. Or does this style go back before their time. What about Abdul-Jabbar? He began playing in '69? Also, I do not remember these players bringing the problems Moose found in today's basketball. I am just trying t figure out what this style of game that he wants is exactly. I think I would need to better understand Moose's idea and goals. Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:45:50 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/why-is-this-racist-really__trashed/#IDComment59684213 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/when-do-we-do-or-say-something__trashed/#IDComment58914973 I was wondering the same thing. The most alarming part of the study was the vast number of people that did not act or chose or decided to keep their mouths shut. I guess the point that was made in class was that maybe it was not their place to step in or just was not their business. When I heard this I was not only surprised by the lack of passion, but also the idea that this could be any one of us. The young girl in the video mentioned that she was scared to go out because of the “22” or the ones that did not feel the need to step in. My point is that this could be any of us facing discrimination and you need to consider that. Wouldn’t you want someone to stand up for you?? Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:00:53 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/when-do-we-do-or-say-something__trashed/#IDComment58914973 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58697234 This made me think about how much of Native American history is absent history or hidden history. Absent history is any history that has not been recorded or that is missing. Much of what happened to the Native Americans is not accessible to us because it is not documented. Hidden history is that which is hidden or forgotten by the mainstream history records. Maybe we need to start by making accessible, putting it in history books, writing down, allowing for classes that focus on this etc. Not only did we try to wipe it out from history all together at once but we are also continuing to make the decision to keep it out of reach. Not only is this important to the Native American people, themselves, but it is also important for the rest of the world to know. This is because it affects communication and understanding between races and cultural groups. Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:52:03 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-one__trashed/#IDComment58697234 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment58695674 Cool. This article made me think more about wealthy American Indians. What I found interesting here was that the money was coming from oil. As we know and have heard again in class, many American Indians profit off of casinos. People can now see a different image of the group. I think before many people saw “poor” or “casino-wealthy”. Maybe it is good for public perception. I have also heard of tribes exploring solar power, as a possibility for financial growth. Solar power is a pretty cool idea because it taps into the cultural values of the group. American Indians’ relationship with nature is one of harmony, unlike the US culture of dominating nature. Not every tribe may be open to the idea of profit from casinos, but all tribes have an interest in energy and nature. I do not know if drilling oil would really coincide with this notion. Overall, I find it interesting to see them coming up with innovative or new was to bring in revenue. My mind also wandered into thinking if this is the wealth they really want. Being the poorest of the poor, I am sure they enjoy money coming in, but would they feel “wealthier” if they had other successes. Such as the success of having their own land or being able to do the things they define as “wealthy” such as respecting their land, and being able to fish or hunt. I found it kind of weird that these tribes are willing to turn their land into a drilling site, filling the streets with traffic and creating environmental problems. I thought they were not interested in exploiting their land; rather they were in to respecting it. Maybe this isn’t really exploitive?? I am not sure if this is true or what they answer is, but I am curious. Also, how does this affect those living on the reservation? Is it always positive? I was thinking that maybe this could have negative effects, because any help they may have been receiving can now be seen as unnecessary. I have read before that wealthy Indians create a disadvantage for the group as a whole because government uses their wealth as a way to say they are not in need. I mentioned the cultural values of the group; maybe this is going to give them a negative image. I did find another positive though. I liked was that they mentioned plans of the money being used for positive necessities, such as law enforcement. It gets to a point, in some ways, where people cannot rely on the government or others for help. American Indians need to also help themselves and be their best advocate. They can also be held responsible for their image. Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:41:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment58695674 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/another-reason-why-gay-marriage-matters__trashed/#IDComment57701802 I never really thought about this part of the problem and how denying marriage between same sexes could cause this kind of issue. This issue here is about gay marriage, not about illegal immigration or citizenship. Whether you agree with or disagree with marriage as a form of granting citizenship does not really matter because it is the law. Watching Shirley, her partner, and sons I saw a loving normal family. The United States was willing to break up a happy family, separating partners from partners and children from parents. I see more harm in this than any harm they were causing living together and raising a family together. I mean what is more important here, really? Wouldn't living with one parent or experiencing the deportation of your mom be more detrimental than living with the two caring parents? So let's state the obvious, if they could get married than Shirley would be exempt from deportation. They live like a married couple, love like a married couple, and have children like a married couple. What great big difference does it make to recognize this and give her the same rights to citizenship by marriage. Maybe there could even be a way to get your green card without the title if you live in such circumstances. Maybe that is a little off. But come on, if Shirley was dating a male she would be allowed to stay?? What sense does that make?? I do not see the difference. At this point, I think maybe God really does need to be taken out of the gay marriage equation. Without getting into my personal religious beliefs, I just want to know how after watching a video like that, an anecdote of one family amongst many others, how one can bring in God. If God is anything, isn't he love?!? Many argue it is against their morals, but I don't get why the way someone else lives their life affects your personal beliefs or morals. How can granting basic rights to loving couples affect your "journey" or what is internally "right" to you? And yeah the video left out a lot and was a little mushy but that was not the point. the point is just to raise an issue. Just to bring about the question of "Have you ever thought that gay marriage could affect some people in this way?" or "Do you the array of issues denying gay marriage can create?" It is just another reason why gay marriage matters. And maybe it does not matter to you but it matters to some, many actually. And maybe by seeing it from different angles or perspectives some can come to realize why gay marriage or legal recognition of a union between two males or two females should be allowed. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:13:00 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/another-reason-why-gay-marriage-matters__trashed/#IDComment57701802