I like those guiding principles, Orodo.
Here's a question for everyone.
Are we immune from an action if that action is a constitutional amendment? Laws and constitutional amendments are things that affect our lives everyday, aren't they? How can we be immune from them?
I think there is a great deal that we can change in reference to our perception of what people are thinking or saying about us. I think it is possible to develop immunity from that sort of thing to a great extent. I don't think that such things constitute "re-abuse."
When a constitutional amendment is proposed and supported in a President's State of the Union speech, I think that those who want such a thing must contitute a group of significant size.
Is it possible anymore to dismiss them as a sort of fringe group?
I have always felt that a majority of people are anti-gay when it gets right down to it. They may be friendly, nice, that sort of thing, they may even be supportive and accepting on a personal, one-on-one basis, but when it comes to broad principles of acceptance and guarantees of basic rights, I think that most of them are anti-gay.
That, from my point of view, is the source, the fountainhead of re-abuse.
If our original abusers saw us as individual human beings worthy of respect and possessing certain basic rights, I don't think the abuse would've occurred.
I think that if people today saw us as a group of individuals worthy of respect and possessing certain basic rights, a constitutional amendment would not only never been proposed but wouldn't have even come forward in any serious way to begin with.
This is, I think, a betrayal of the trust that as human beings we should be able assume. Am I wrong?
I liked this thread, and as I reread this years later thought there were some good points.
Standing together is so much better than hiding in the dark.
***I am a three time WoR Retreat Alumni*** The Round Table
, Men's CSA Group, Monday 7:30pm CST, MaleSurvivor Chat