Posted on 04/13/2006 8:07:57 AM PDT by WildPlum
WASHINGTON -- Hundreds of gay and lesbian parents hoping to take their families to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll plan to start lining up Friday evening to make sure they get tickets for the Monday event.
Thousands of tickets — an estimated 16,000 last year — are given away on a first-come-first-come basis beginning at 7:30 a.m. Saturday.
National Park Service officials said Wednesday that children of all ages may attend as long as there is at least one child 7 years old or younger, and no more than two adults per group.
First lady Laura Bush's office issued a statement saying all families are welcome to attend.
[END OF EXCERPT]
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
:-)
Does anyone know how the White House Easter egg roll went?
I heard it went "fabulous."
I didn't hear of anything happening.
Big surprise, eh?
Great!
You know what, it's tomorrow.
I forgot what day it is!
oh tomorrow!! Oh Sh--
A fundamental problem with attributing social phenomena to education levels is that education is closely correlated with both wealth and urbanization, among other things. It can be difficult to distinguish which factor is influencing what, and for that matter it's an open question to what degree they should be distinguished.
I would say that's the reason why class is such a useful defining factor, because class merges multiple factors under one unifying conceptual rubric, although it's primarily meant to signify economic status (needless to mention).
That all said, I think there's no doubt that education levels are highly correlated with tolerance of liberated sexuality (not just with regard to homosex, but other types as well), but in a somewhat paradoxical manner. Very generally speaking, the highest degrees of both tolerance and non-normative behavior may be found at the highest and lowest extremes of class (and education). The highest degrees of conformity and intolerance may be found within the middle ranges, especially amongst the upwardly mobile.
In my view the reason for that, to put it as simply as possible, is because the lowest class has little to lose and the highest class has little to fear.
Now, I want to backtrack a bit and clarify just one point, with regard to the correlation between the status of women and the expression of homosexuality. From a historical standpoint, there are three general systems of male homoerotic behavior: age-structured, transgenderal, and androphilia. The most prevalent system in the modern West is (egalitarian) androphilia - and that's what is commonly referred to and conceptualized as homosexuality.
Now, by and large (although hardly exclusively) androphilia is a modern phenomenon, or at least it's a modern phenomenon as the cardinal system. My comments above with regard to women's lib and gay lib are intended for that context. In premodern societies, the correlations are different.
More precisely, societies in which age-structured homoeroticism is normative or prevalent (and this includes the subset of class-defined homoeroticism) the opposite correlation appears to be true: A higher prevalence of age-structured homoeroticism tends to correlate with lower status for women. This may perhaps be the case because age-structured homoeroticism also tends to correlate very strongly with martial organization (e.g., Greek hoplites and Japanese samurai).
On the other hand, societies in which transgendered homoeroticism is more prevalent tend to correlate with a higher status of women. This may perhaps be the case because societies that feature normative 'third genders' tend to be less advanced (e.g., the Amerindian berdache or the Oceanic mahu). More to the point, they tend to be less urbanized, and before the modern era the status of women tended to be lower the more urbanized a society.
These are not the only factors, nor is this a complete overview, but it's enough for an idle internet post!
PS. I realize two of you may not care, but no one's forcing you to read this! I'm just pinging you because you were part of the earlier discussion.
That's because when you posted it hadn't happened yet. In fact, it's now a little after 8.30 in Washington, the following day, and it STILL hasn't happened yet.
Are you married, ZULU? Do you have a good marriage?Do you know how a great marriage like the Bush's works?
I didn't think so.
This is not a victory, and it has nothing to do with the Republican party.
It will be seen for what it is, and the American people will be disgusted.
Mrs. Bush is a Christian and she knows that.
Have you read the Gospels, rcrn? Have you seen what the Pharisees attacked Jesus for? Fellowshipping with sinners.
Making NO comparison saying that the President is like Jesus Christ (which will surely be said by someone), but knowing that he, as a follower of Jesus Christ, tries to emulate what his Savior would do, I'd say that his love for others is not to be condemned, but to be emulated.
His behavior is more consistent with Biblical truth than yours.
1. How do you get to be a 'parent' if you're a homosexual?
2. Why tell people what you do in bed and who/what you do it with in the process of applying to attend an Easter Egg hunt?
Thanks for the note. About two thirds of it I already knew due to your former "classes" on the subject. That is kind of frightening. Your sentence about little to fear, and little to lose, is so right, and well phrased.
He was wise to ignore it. Somehow I think the president has slightly more important things to do than issuing a statement on an egg roll. People need to get a grip and get over it. Come on people, It's an egg roll, only an egg roll. Nobody molested anyone, flashed anyone or made a big scene. The future of the marriage amendment wasn't decided there. I think there are much bigger fish to fry than a few gay families showing up at an egg roll event. While it may have been in bad taste for them to do it, I don't think any child's fun was diminished because they did. I don't think an innocent child should be excluded or made to feel like dirt because of their parent's choices. I think Laura Bush handled it in a very diplomatic gracious way.
There is no debate as to whether or not they know it. The question is with those of you who believe that they should treat homosexuals as worse sinners than say, gossips or liars.....
As born again Christians, they treat others with love........which is, I believe, in accordance with Scripture, and with Christ's example.
Is that something that your denomination has failed to teach you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.