Why is it...?

**Darris Chambless** · 03-13-2002, 12:52 PM

Why is that movie and TV stars are considered "courageous" or "brave" when they publically come out of the closet or check themselves in for drug rehab? What is it that makes that "courageous"? Am I missing something?

The reason for this is that I'm standing in the checkout line at the grocery store yesterday evening and I look over and see on the front cover of a magazine a story about Rosie O'Donnell. The story is about how courageous she is for coming out of the closet and that she is happy. The first thing that went through my mind was "Who cares?" The second thing was why are these people even classified as "courageous" or "brave" when they've done NOTHING to deserve that designation?

Those that check themselves in for drug rehab (usually under court order and not of their own accord) aren't "brave" or "courageous"; they ARE junkies and alcoholics. Those that come out of the closet aren't "brave" or "courageous"; they're gay and sexuality is a private matter. Coming out publically, in my opinion, is no different than public exhibitionism. I don't run out to the local mall and shout at the top of my lungs that my wife and I were intimate the night before and expect to be considered "brave" or "courageous" for doing so. I do expect to be arrested though :)

Darris' Courageous Admission

"Today Darris Chambless announced that he is heterosexual and is happy."

Now does anyone really care and am I truly "courageous" or "brave" for publically announcing that? Hmmm. I really don't think I am and I, in fact, know that I'm not "courageous" or "brave" because of my public admission. I'm just me doing what I've always done.

I just don't get it. The worst part is that Rosie has, I believe, four adopted children. Now adopting children is all fine and good and a loving home is the best place for them but the connotations that go along with this type of family life is just overwhelming. I'm not saying that gay individuals can't or shouldn't adopt children, but are they really thinking about the children? We don't have children for us we have children for them. Regardless of how nice a world people believe it should be there are still prejudices and bad things can and will happen because of that fact. Shouldn't these people be aware of this, understand it and accept it when it happens (not "if" it happens)?

The same applies to when a person checks his/herself in or is court ordered to check in for drug rehab. You break the law you fullfill your obligation under that law. When one tries to take care of an addiction that they brought upon themselves they are not "brave" or "courageous" they are trying to correct their mistake (if they actually do it of their own accord) Trying to correct ones own stupidity has never been "brave" or "courargeous" in my eyes, you're just trying to undo what you screwed up in the first place.

To sum all this up, if you publically announce that you are gay it doesn't make you "brave" or "courageous" it just lets the world know you're gay. If gay individuals adopt children and give them a loving home then that's all fine and good (for the adopters), but be expecting opposition to it and a tough time for the children growning up because it WILL happen in some form or fashion. If you are chermically dependant and check in for drug rehab you're not a "hero" but are rather an idiot trying to get someone elses help to fix a problem you brought on yourself.

Anyway that's my thought for the day,

Darris C.

**Pete Hanlin** · 03-13-2002, 01:29 PM

Darris said:
...but are they really thinking about the children?

Won't SOMEBODY think about the children!?! I never thought I'd see that traditionally liberal phrase coming from Darris!

So, Rosie O'Donnell is a lesbian? For some reason, that just isn't all that shocking. I suppose her and Ellen Degeneres (sp?) can roam in the same circles now...

Thanks for putting the image of Rosie O'Donnell with another woman in my mind now... pretty disconcerting (although I'll admit that the mental image of Rosie O'Donnell with anyone is enough to make me lose my libido for a few hours)!
:)

Well, now that I've been cruel to Rosie, I'll "come out of the closet" and admit to being a white, heterosexual, middle-class, college-educated conservative Republican male. Love me, accept me, tout me as brave and courageous!

**Darris Chambless** · 03-13-2002, 01:49 PM

Well, Pete,

When saying "...but are they really thinking about the children?" I meant it more in terms of are they thinking about the child or are they thinking about themselves?

Far be it from me to say anything even remotely sounding Liberal. I apologize for doing so and I should be flogged repeatedly for it. Perhaps even drawn and quartered :)

I have one other admission to make for myself (for bravery sake). They say that inside of every man is a woman trying to get out. Well, I have to admit that this is true for me. Her name is Ingrid, she wears the same clothes that I do and she, like Rosie, is a lesbian :)

There I said it! I prefer women and I'm not ashamed either. My heterosexuality will be worn like a badge of honor for me in public. I am man hear me roar "I'm not queer, but I'm here. Get use to it!" :) I'm even thinking of marching in a "Straight Pride Parade" :)

Toodles,

Darris C.

**Pete Hanlin** · 03-13-2002, 02:16 PM

Sorry Darris,
You are now on record as caring about children. According to the definition of "Conservative" the the American press has been spewing these past couple decades, you cannot be a "pure" right-winger.

Sure, you may still want to exterminate the elderly, poison our drinking water, and create loads more deficit spending on frivilous things like national defense, but hey- you care about children!

Personally, I'm shocked! I thought I had at least one other bigoted, hateful, rich Republican I could rely on here at OptiBoard. It is now obvious that I stand alone- well, I still have Chip...
;)

(For the liberal among us, the above was sarcasm...)

**Darris Chambless** · 03-13-2002, 03:07 PM

Pete,

You're absolutely right. It's all a sham, a fascade of sorts. I am a closet liberal, I'm even a card carrying member of PETA. I care about children, I'm an animal lover, I think that Rosie is a saint and should be worshipped as a Goddess. (Gasp!) I even think the Baldwins are a great bunch of guys (Weep weep weep)

All these years of hiding behind my Conservative front. Having to force myself to poison the water, physically getting sick to my stomache while smoothering the elderly as they slept, and pulling the plugs of their life support. The last time I kicked a homeless person and told them to "get a job you bum!" I didn't take any pleasure in it at all. It was like I was just going through the motions. It felt empty somehow. I actually felt compasion for all these people. I did go to therapy for this knowing that it couldn't happen to me but it just seemed so...so...Me at the time.

I looked at the sky and bagan to cry quietly. I was becoming sensative and my feelings were overriding good, sound judgement. I knew at that moment that I had become a better man. The kind of man that won't lift a finger to help anyone but will yell the loudest proclaiming that everyone should help everyone. The kind of man that cries when action is needed. The kind of man that wets himself when a crisis occurs. The kind of man that Oprah interviews. The kind of man that will make a stand for nothing but be for everything. I had become a liberal man; a girly man :)

My moto is "I'm proud to be mediocrity." And hey! Being average ain't bad and is what I strive for (the only problem is having to lower myself to that level. I guess being conservative had it's advantages) My kids will play sports that aren't scored so their self esteem isn't harmed and so that they never learn to be competitive. They will go to public school and learn that we only have a 50 years supply of oil, the Rain Forest are being destroyed by man and that sucker fish have more right to live on the planet than human kind does as they should. Every sheet of paper is a tree destroyed you know?

I belive that everything should be regulated and decided by the government since though know what's best for me. Government officials are looking out for my best intrests and wouldn't do anything for personal gain at my expense.

It's true. It's all true! They said so so it must be and I always believe what the media tells me.

I'm so sorry Pete. I feel as though I've let you down. If you need comfort or just a shoulder to cry on I'm here for you. Hillary's book "It Takes a Village" is, upon reflection, devine and worth the hours it takes to read.

I feel your pain,

Darris L.

PS. For any of you that feel that I've "seen the light" get a life :)

**Judy Canty** · 03-13-2002, 03:07 PM

liberal, adj. 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in religious or political affairs. 2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform. 3. favorable to or in accord with the policy of leaving the individual as unrestricted as possible in the opportunities for self-expression or self-fulfillment. 4. of representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies. 5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant. 6. giving freely or in ample measure: a liberal donor. 7. given freely or abundantly: a liberal donation. 8. not strict or rigorous: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

When did this definition change?

see www.non-sequitur.com for March 10, 2002...

**Darris Chambless** · 03-13-2002, 03:23 PM

My dearest Judy,

Let me first say that Pete and I are kdding around, but I will answer your question with two questions ;)

"When did this definition change?"

First: When did this not apply?

Second: When did the definition of Conservative change to one that wants to poison the water, pollute the air, cut down the Rain Forrest, starve children, abandon the sick and leave the elderly to have to choose between food or medicine?

I went to read the cartoon and it was great! Thanks for the site. It's always nice to see good little Conservative children that can see the truth for what it is :)

Darris C. or L. or whatever. :)

PS. It's funny that the definition of Liberal and Conservative have both been changed to suit, but not by the Conservatively minded ;)

**Judy Canty** · 03-13-2002, 03:48 PM

conservative, adj. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutuions, etc. 2. cautious or moderate: a conservative estimate. 3. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. 4. noting or pertaining to a political party whose characteristic principle is opposition to change in the institutuions of a country. -n. 5. a person of conservative principles. 6. a member of a conservative party in politics, esp. in England. 7. a preservative.

Sweetie, I know you guys are kidding (for the most part)...

courage, n. 1. the quality of mind that enables one to encounter difficulties and danger with firmness or without fear; bravery. 2. have the courage of one's convictions, to act consistently with one's convictions. syn. courage is that quality of mind which ensbles one to face dangers, difficulties, threats, pain, etc., without fear.

I believe that Rosie's courage is being able to publicly acknowledge her sexuality in the face of those who would say that sexuality or sexual preferance alone disqualifies one from having and raising children. The fact that she should have to address the issue at all is a sad reflection of our times.
I also believe that substance abuse is a treatable disease, and that those who risk public embarassment, ridicule and/or ostracism in seeking treatment can exhibit a kind of bravery and courage...

Some thoughts from your liberal friend... ;)

**Pete Hanlin** · 03-13-2002, 03:57 PM

Judy,
Knowing that your extensive knowledge of martial arts will allow you to kick my butt all over NYC this weekend, I will bravely try to respond in keeping with the character (or lack thereof) of this thread... You see, my point is, I am responding in a ludicrous way (but a way that would seem to be in keeping with the media's portrayal of Republicans/Conservatives).
;)

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in religious or political affairs.
Well, I'm actually quite unfavorable towards most reform... As an oligarchist (just ask Steve), I like things the way they are (given that I am a member of the conservative elite that seeks to repress everyone else and retain all the wealth and power to ourselves).
2. noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
See above, with the additional comment that naturally I must be against campaign finance reform since my party is the only one that receives scads of money from greedy companies whose sole purpose is to defraud and fleece the unsuspecting American public (e.g., Enron). Since my party doesn't get as much money from the Labor Unions (who are only interested in their constituents quality of life and right to a fair wage, which is why they give primarily to Democrats- the party of hard working blue collar types), we have to cheat the system one way or another, and we don't wish to have that system change!
3. favorable to or in accord with the policy of leaving the individual as unrestricted as possible in the opportunities for self-expression or self-fulfillment.
Well of course I want to restrict people! I want to mandate that they cannot conveniently dispose of their unwanted fetus (which should be their right, because we all know an unborn child isn't really a person and has no rights to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness). Also, I am- according to the media- naturally pre-disposed to be anti-art (especially art that is borderline pornographic and is funded by my money). I expect everyone to drive gas hogging SUVs and wear blue suits with red ties...
4. of representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
Obviously I have problems with this item. After all, I supported King George and his son, "W." People like me even had the gall to suggest that the Supreme Court was correct when they ran roughshod over the good intentioned apolitical rulings of the Florida Supreme Court and decided that W won last year's election...
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant.
Are you kidding?!? As a Republican, I resemble those remarks! After all, aren't all conservatives little more than hate mongering bigots?
6. giving freely or in ample measure: a liberal donor.
Well, despite the fact that each year registered Republicans give more money to charity than do registered Democrats, it is obvious that I would naturally be against giving anyone a break, chance, hand-up, or other opportunity...
7. given freely or abundantly: a liberal donation.
dittos
8. not strict or rigorous:
Guilty as charged! After all, I'm from a party that (gasp) actually expects schools to perform well if they want additional funding, even though it should be obvious that teachers- of all people- should be exempt from any kind of performance review (after all, all they are charged with is the education of our future generations...)

My point (um, let's see... is there one, oh yeah!) is this- I'm sick and tired of hearing on the news that I'm a pitiful waste of humanity simply because I'm not liberal! Furthermore, I'm fed-up (as is Darris, apparently) with the continual applause and laud afforded to liberal groups (like feminists, pro-choicers, alternative life-stylers, etc.). I'm not saying any of these groups are necessarily wrong or don't have a right to the freedoms every American should have- I'm just saying I'm sick of being told at 6 and 11 every night that somehow these folks are "superior" or "enlightened" because of their views!

Love ya, Judy! You just gave me an opportunity to vent! Next time I walk into an OAA discussion, you can vent back using me!
:p

**Cindy Hamlin** · 03-13-2002, 04:37 PM

Read this story from the USA today it explains that she gave her story to Diane Sawyer in exchange for them promoting the issue of gay couples adopting in Florida.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/t...2-odonnell.htm

**Judy Canty** · 03-13-2002, 04:42 PM

You guys are so cute...

I'm also tired of being portrayed as a tree-hugging, granola-munching, drug addicted baby-killer by identifying myself as a liberal.
I don't hug trees, I hug my kids and the fact that I have them is my choice not anyone else's. After all, I have to bear them and through that choice agree to raise them to be good, decent citizens. I hate granola, the box usually tastes better. Drugs? Who survived the '60's and early '70's without at least a little curiosity?
I believe in the death penalty, when used judiciously, educational accountability from schools who pay teachers enough to consider it as a career and a profession(my parents are retired public school teachers for heaven's sake), real and meaningful campaign finance reform, a strong, well-educated military, mandatory national service for everyone(not just men), equal and civil rights, and reproductive choice.

Have fun in the City, I'll be in Williamsburg seeing my daughter in a play...if necessary, I'll demonstrate my new-found skills in Atlanta...

**Darris Chambless** · 03-13-2002, 05:36 PM

It's your sense of humor I love about you dear...

As a conservative (According to the media and most of the Democratic congressmen running for office) I want polluted air, poison water, all natural resources used up, acid rain, starving children, demoralized homeless and elderly having to decide between food or medicine.

Literally, when I turn on the TV this is what I'm told. I want all these things and will stop at nothing to get them because I'm a souless demon. I hear all this and I wonder who the closed minded ones really are? I wonder if any of these people ever stop to think that if I or any other Conservative were to succeed in accomplishing these things where would WE live? :)

As to the definitions, anything to excess is not a good thing. The liberal definition opens up too many other avenues for people to drive down when morals are lacking (refer to Pete's discarding fetus analogy) Liberal ideology (not the definition) also makes victims out of the perpetrators and they are defended on those grounds.

As to the courage thing, it takes just as much courage for me to come out and claim to be a heterosexual because by todays stereo typing by being hetero I'm automatically a homophobe as well and will be attacked just as readily. For Rosie to come out and publically announce this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Maybe it will work as well for her as it did for Elen Degenerous ;)

My thing is this, I am the Omega Man as are all Conservatives in this day and time. We have been made to be the monsters by the changing attitudes of some and yet we did nothing to anyone else, quite the contrary. Our attackers also made themselves out to be the victims and convinced people of this. That is the actual sad reflection of our times not to mention with regard to Rosie the link posted by Cindy. Rosie was in it for personal gain. What a good liberal she is :)

The saddest fact of the matter is what these children with have to grow up enduring from society, these couples know this in advance and yet do it anyway and then complain when it happens. It's kind of like building a nice big house at the end of a runway and then complaining about the noise after you've lived there for a couple of weeks. They knew in advance and then blamed the airport. These couples do this and then blame society for what they knew in advance would happen. I am truly sorry to say this, but they are just as much to blame as society since they too are a part of society and what they're doing is not accept by most so they will get opposition to it and unfortunately the children will suffer becaus of the decisions made by these couples.

As to substance abuse being a "treatable disease" I will agree that it is a treatable "condition" but it is definitely not a disease. Treatable, yes. Disease, no. Not to mention it is only treatable if the abusers truly wants to quit and really wants help. Do either of those meet the criteria of being "courageous" or "brave" no more so than me going out and deciding to bungee jump and doing it. It might make me a thrill seeker. It might even classify me as an idiot, but "brave" or "courageous"? I think not.

Anyway, I enjoy your spirit and and "open mindedness" when it comes to subjects of this sort.

Take care Judy,

Love,

Darris C.

**Judy Canty** · 03-13-2002, 06:54 PM

You know, the "what about the children" thing brings back a lot of memories. That's what everyone, my parents, Keith's parents, our brothers and sisters, all lamented when we married 22 years ago. Keith is black and American. He's not African-American, because, he says he's never been to Africa. I've been to Africa. When I was pregnant with Beth, all I seemed to hear was either about the "poor child" or what "it" would look like. :angry:

Keith and I have 3 beautiful children.
Heather is 31 and Keith adopted her when she was 10. It almost didn't happen because the Social Services department in VA. Beach didn't feel that interracial couples were the best environment. Never mind that Keith was a Naval Aviator with masters degrees in Psychology and Human Resources Management, he was BLACK!!!
Beth is our first daughter. She's 21 and a stunning redhead, with olive skin and huge brown eyes. She's an academic senior and a social junior at The College of William and Mary, a Delta Gamma, Resident Assistan(2 yrs) and next year will be Head Resident, a JV cheerleader and manages a student-run theatre group, while maintaining a solid 3.5 GPA. She's bound for law school, where she wants to specialize in internet and entertainment law.
Ben is our son. He's 15, also a redhead, with olive skin and beautiful brown eyes. He's already 5'8" and by the size of his feet, we could be in big trouble feeding and clothing him. He has a beautiful singing voice and is active in the chorus and musical theatre programs at school. He also has a red belt in Tae Kwon Do and is preparing for his black belt exam.
Yup...those poor children, what will become of them...

**Darris Chambless** · 03-14-2002, 03:32 PM

Dearest Judy,

I hate to do it but I have to take issue with you on this one. You're going to equate children being raised in a family with a mother and a father to a child being reared in a home with two lesbian women? Unfortunately this is typical of the arguements I see being used in most liberal debate. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

At the time you and your husband were married interacial marriages were not looked upon favorably by most. Now days the prejudices are still there but to a lesser extent. As to your families concern for your decision (I'm sure you didn't and still may not look at it as concern, but...) they were worried about what could happen to you and the children you had with your husband because of those prejudices, I would venture to guess. I would also venture a gues that their concern didn't stop with just you and went over to your husbands welfare as well. He too would be walking the line right along with you and I'm sure that he knew the decision would not be popular with a lot of people out there as well especially given the times BUT you both knew that. You also understood at that point (whether you knew it or not) the "what if's" concerning your decision. You were adults, you understood, you overcame and you conquered AND you are a man and a woman!

I'll add to your analogy and let's see if we can make it hit a little closer to home. If one of your daughters fell in love with a no good, three time loser, drug dealer and you knew all of this about him would you send her off with him with your blessing? Of course you wouldn't. But why is that? It's because, for whatever the reason, of your concern for your family. Not because you don't want to give the guy a chance but because you can visualize all those things that could potentially become reality for your daughter and none of them are good.

Let's go a little further and say that this guy is madly in love with your daughter and swears he will never let anything happen to her and let's say he is scincere. You know as an adult and as a mother that circumstances beyond either of thier control, because of the environment he has chosen to live and work in, could still happen and that would be unacceptable to you. If there were anything you could do to prevent bad things from happening to your daughter you would do it even if it meant you might end up being hated or disowned by your daughter.

There are things that as an adult and a father I've come to understand. I may not like some of those things but I have to understand all the possibilities and as a father I will do whatever I feel I need to to protect my child in any way I can.

So do I hate that children are being raised in a homosexual environment? If it's a loving environment and the child is well taken care of then who am I to deny a child a loving home? But those same people adopting have to understand that taking on this responsibvility offers up more problems for the children than just growing pains. Prejudices are there and no one can deny it. So will the child have a happy and uneventful childhood? I would put my vote in for "No." Does that mean that I'm prejudiced against it and will be one of those that runs out to taunt and torment the children of homosexual families? No! But I'm adult enough and smart enough to know it WILL happen and there's nothing anyone can do about it after the fact. Also, when it happens these mothers or fathers should not turn around and blame society alone. As responsible adults they they should know these prejudices are out there. The problem is that so many just dodn't want to believe they really existed or that it would happen to them.

Does it bother me that two women or two men are together? No. Does it bother me that a black man and white women (or vice versa) are together? No. Does it bother me that any of these couples have children through adoption or naturally? No. The problem is I'm only speaking for Me and not anyone else and since I don't read minds I can't tell you what others think or will do and there in lies the ultima problem. What I do have a problem with is any of these couples not facing this fact in advance and then blaming society for their woes when it happens. It takes two to tango. When these things happen if these couples face up to it and endure then they are adult and responsible, when they blame society soley they are ignoring other facts pertaining to themselves and their own role in it.

I don't know how else to explain it. But as to Rosie and her "bravery" for coming out in public it isn't "brave" or "courageous" and because of "society" will probably end up being a detriment equating to stupidity. Look at what happened to Ellen Degenerous. She came out and her successful TV show went down the tubes and she's hardly been heard from since. The same can be said for Mellisa Ethridge and her soul mate having a child (those two aren't even together anymore from what I've heard) "Come to my window" became a big hit and she was really on the rise, then the announcement of the child and who's heard anything out of her on any large scale scince? Hmmm. So was it "brave" or career ending? And the best part is I saw it coming but had nothing to do with any of it ;)

As adults we are commisioned to understand and foresee what we can through our own lifes experiences. Then and only then can we accept the outcome and sit back and hope for the best even when we know the best will never come. That's when we understand what "family" really means. No one is ever abandoned by their own.

I've known for a while that your husband is black and if I recall I asked if you two would adopt me since he is a retired military officer. So then what's the deal? Is it because I'm white? Is it my age? That would be discriminatory on both counts :) But surely you and Keith have no prejudices of your own? ;)

Love ya Judy but I keep wondering about the "Keith" chip you carry on your shoulder. Is this not a prejudice of your own?

Darris C.

**Judy Canty** · 03-14-2002, 04:34 PM

Sweetie, I guess my real issue here is that some individual or some agency feels justified in passing judgement on my parenting abilities or the quality of life I can provide based on nothing more than race, gender or sexual preference. I drag poor Keith out for the benefit of those who are reading this who may not know my background. There is nothing more irritating than having to listen to a rant from someone who has no relevant experience with the issue at hand. Don't kid yourself, interracial marriages may be more prevelant, but they are certainly not more acceptable. And yes, our kids have had to deal with some pretty nasty situations and we have prepared them for such encounters by providing a safe and loving environment. The ability to create and maintain that environment is not gender specific.

If we adopt you, will you help me with the "honey-do's" that Keith never gets around to? That could hurry the process along. :D

**Darris Chambless** · 03-14-2002, 06:38 PM

Hi Judy,

"Sweetie, I guess my real issue here is that some individual or some agency feels justified in passing judgement on my parenting abilities or the quality of life I can provide based on nothing more than race, gender or sexual preference."

I can understand you feeling that way which is why I stated that very thing in my post. I said "who am I to deny a child a loving home?" and I mean that BUT I can only speak for Me.

"There is nothing more irritating than having to listen to a rant from someone who has no relevant experience with the issue at hand."

I hate to point out the obvious, but Keith is a man so I'm not sure where the "relevant experience" for you comes in? The actual issue at hand was the designations of "brave" and "courageous" given for ones publically coming out of the closet. My reference to the children had to do with what will now be public knowledge for all to peruse. How will the children fair now? Was Rosie thinking about that? I think not.

As to a racial issue: Honey I live in San Angelo, TX. White folk are targets for young hispanics and blacks to become initiated into gangs. A good frined of mine had his stepfather knifed after picking up two youths in his cab to take them someplace. It was a gang initiation. The initiation was to kill a white person. All through junior high school I was constantly being threatened and hit by the hispanic kids. Why? Because I was white. Had a young man decide that he would try to wrap a chainsaw chain around my head one day after school. He failed, but the reason was racial prejudice. Had I done anything to him? Nope. Only knew him from gym class and he never hung out with anyone except the other hispanic kids. So if we want to get down to brass tacks it seemed that yours and Keiths families were worried about what might happen, I was worried about getting a chair or chain upside the head or being cut while walking home one day. Do I hate hispanics? No, but I'm not too fond of those particular hispanics. Would I want any of these guys adopting and raising a child? Not on a bet. Would you?

"Don't kid yourself, interracial marriages may be more prevelant, but they are certainly not more acceptable."

I have no problem with them and there are many like me I can promise you that. I said "Now days the prejudices are still there but to a lesser extent." Perhaps I should have said "but to a lesser outward extent." But in any case would your statement mean "nationwide" and what do you base it on? Perhaps in your experiences it is very prevelent and I won't argue against that. The prejudices are still there and I know that, but again we're not talking about racial prejudice, or at least I wasn't, but (to a lesser extent) what happens when someone adopts kids and then publically anounces their homosexuality to the world? Did they think about that?

"And yes, our kids have had to deal with some pretty nasty situations and we have prepared them for such encounters by providing a safe and loving environment. The ability to create and maintain that environment is not gender specific."

It's good that you prepared your children for the inevitable and as I've stated I too have dealt with prejudice so I can both sympathize and empathize with them. It's not just a black and white issue and it's not always whites against blacks, the reverse is also true and I've felt and experienced that as well. But in it all I don't carry those chips on my shoulder or hate in my heart.

As to gender specificity I agree as long as there is a mother and a father. Nothing could be less gender specific than that don't you think? One of each? ;)

"If we adopt you, will you help me with the "honey-do's" that Keith never gets around to? That could hurry the process along."

You bet Mom! Anything I can do for you and Dad that'll keep me from having to live in the real world :) Been in it long enough to know that I liked being a kid more than I thought at the time.

Take care Judy and enjoy your daughters play. Perhaps one of these days we can meet again. It was a pleasure meeting you in N.O.

Darris C.

**Judy Canty** · 03-15-2002, 09:22 AM

Mornin' Darris,
The "relevant experience" is not Keith's gender, but the reality that my daughter from my first marriage would be denied the benefit of becoming my husband's adopted daughter for no other reason than race.
And so far as the racial issues are concerned, I was attacked by an employee at work for no other reason than I had married Keith and "taken" another good black man out of the picture. It took 2 grown men to get her hands off my throat and I was unable to speak for several days following the attack. Interracial relationships are still so uncommon that people come into my store, customers and sales reps, and believe that they can, in the course of conversation, refer to "n*****" with out a single thought that it might be offensive to me. The customers pay extra for their stupidity, the sales reps just don't get any business from me.
And finally, I was able to creat a warm, loving and safe environment for my daughter when I was a single parent and I believe that the skills necessary to create that environment are not gender specific nor do they require 2 parents. They do require unconditional love and respect.

OAA will be in Atlanta this year, maybe we'll meet up there. I'll bring cigars...

Love,
Judy

**Darris Chambless** · 03-15-2002, 03:08 PM

Hi Judy,

I was having a conversation with Chad regarding your post because I'm having difficulty finding the relavance in it to my original theme, but just to be sure I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, so enter Chad. I read your post to Chad and he got this strange look on his face. He especially perked up when you said:

"Interracial relationships are still so uncommon that people come into my store, customers and sales reps, and believe that they can, in the course of conversation, refer to "n*****" with out a single thought that it might be offensive to me."

I would say that at least 50% of the relationships/marriages or more around here are interracial. There in lies the reason Chad perked up. Chad is married to a very lovely hispanic woman. A good friend and neighbor of mine is a black man and is married to a white woman and for whatever reason it just doesn't seem to affect their lives like it affects yours. Chad even asked if I knew how long you two had been married and I told him I wasn't sure but somewhere around 20 to 22 years. Chad said he was thankful that he didn't carry a chip like that on his shoulder. What he said after was this "My wife being hispanic doesn't bother me. If it bothers someone else that doesn't bother me either because it's their problem, not mine."

I'm just guessing here on this but I would deduce that the co-worker that attacked you was a black female? If this is correct was she attacking you because Keith is black? Because you are white? Because she was prejudiced? Or because of jealousy that you had taken a good man off of her list of potentials? Did she know you and Keith at the same time? Did she have the "hots" for Keith?

All of these questions are relevant to the racial issue you've brought up because many of the scenarios that you've brought up sound racial on the surface but then a little more light is shed on it and we come to find out that may not be the case. Both your family AND Keiths family were not fond of the decision you two had made according to what you said earlier. Then we look at the circumstances of the decision when you both decided to wed. I explained that perhaps (and it's only a guess on my part) the unfavorable attitudes had less to do with race and more to do with concern for problems that could arise from prejudice that is all around and even more so in the place and time you two decided to wed (whether you see it that way or not). As to what "it" would look like (referring to children) that kind of statement comes from ignorance which is also where most prejudice comes from as well.

My suggestion as to the racial problems you or your family face is to move to Texas. We may be Hill Billys but we're nice Hill Billys :) You could even move into a house that's just down the street from me and I'll introduce you to Ray and Christine (the "interracial" couple; which is really uncomfortable for me to say because we don't see "interracial" in any relationship. It's a moot point to us for some reason. Maybe it's because we're just better than everybody else ;)

As to reps and customers coming in and telling racial jokes or using racial slurs, those VA folks sound pretty rude to me. Sounds to me like common courtesy and manners are lacking a bit around where you are too. So are they all like this? Again I'm just trying to get a feel for this prejudice and how far reaching it really is. I know it exists but it's not as rampant as one might believe. From your perspective and location it may be, but from my perspective and location it just isn't and we're a pretty conservative state (which, according to liberal ideology, means that we hate anyone that's not us and wish for the "master race" concept to return :) Don't get me wrong racism is alive and well but it is definitely not a white/black only thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Now with all that said, for children to be raised in a manner most conducive to their well being (note I'm referring to the childrens well being not the adults) they need to be raised in a household where there is a mother and a father. Anyone can create a "loving environment" for a child to live in but that still doesn't make it the best for the child. Therein lies the rest of the problem. It's selfishness on the part of the adult trying to do so and thinking everything is all fine and good when it's the child that suffers and society that gets the blame (looking perplexed and scratching my head in wonder as to why people don't get this)

Can gay couples raise children in a loving environment? Yup. Will the child do well in that environment? Maybe. Will the childs ideas of relationships be better off or worse off by being brought up in this type of setting? ??? Love is not the do all end all although it is important to a childs growth and developement. A child needs a mother and a father in order to grow up in the best possible environment not a mother and a mother or a father and a father. They were born of male and female DNA and should be raised in that environment. Single mothers can raise children in a loving environment but children still do better when there is a mother and father. Always have and always will and there is no disputing that.

NOW with that all aside :) Rosie is neither "brave" or "courageous" for coming out of the closet publically and has probably (more than likely) created more problems for herself AND for her children than she ever thought about. In other words she acted before thinking. It was not something she "had" to do but rather something that she "did."

Anyway Judy I love ya and I worry about you because it's my nature and I want you to know that the whole world ain't like that ;)

Darris C.