Backlash On Homosexuals Over Gay Rights

No. People are free to believe whatever that wish to believe. However, the problem is acting on those beliefs. Treating people with contempt, disparaging them, and advocating for the denial of equal rights, based on those beliefs, is in fact bigotry. Telling lies or choosing to be willfully ignorant about people who are different, just because you don't approve of them- in order to turn others against them and fear them is bigotry. Both snorkum and you do all of that. You are both bigots.

 

Brilliantly said!! Bravo!!

 

Thank you Johnny!! Will they ever learn?

 

They won't 'learn', still they'll will notice once reality is pressed up against their faces and cannot be ignored.

If it were not important to me to fight for improvements/change, that they might come about more quickly... I'd be perfectly content with quietly waiting for reality to show them all.

 

Sam, I am with you on abortion, but not the gays, and I believe I am with you on abortion for different reasons. Morality is a tough concept. I view the morality of a particular act from the perspective of how does the act hurt civilization, or humanity in general? If a large group of people were taking the hypothetical immoral action, what would that look like for civilization (now obviously this criterion is not absolutely required in consideration of morality, as it won't take a large number of people committing murder to know it is immoral, but I think taking this view can sometimes be helpful). In other words, I don't just accept anyone's word on the morality or immorality of a subject. I'm going to need to see the clear, negative consequences in my face, or at least a logical prediction that those effects will occur, before I can denounce a behavior as immoral.

I view abortion differently, as I foresee negative consequences to the practice, but I cannot fault individuals for having an abortion. Because A) I could be wrong bout the bad consequences, and B) I can't fault them for not seeing something I do, when our scientists and govt have showed them no consequences to the act. But when it comes to homosexuality, I have been shown zero negative consequences to homosexuals having sex. I have been shown how reckless, promiscuous sex can have negative consequences, but they aren't exclusive to the gay community. The negative impact on society, imo, comes from NOT allowing gays to marry, or from oppressing them in any other way. I think there are negative effects to prohibiting gays from enjoying the same source of commitment and partnership available to heteros. I can only see benefits to allowing them to partner in the same was as everyone else. The supposed effects on child rearing are leaps in my mind. I've seen too much in my life with hetero parents being horrible parents to somehow think gays will do worse.

I hope this explains how I can be with you on abortion, but not this. I can't have my morality dictated to me. One can't just tell me being gay is morally wrong without giving me the evidence that gays have negative effects on society. I mean look at those anti-gay protests in Russia! I can instinctively tell that those people are inhibiting a free, efficient, prosperous society, not gays.

 

Exactly why I have nagged my brother about a CCW permit.

 

Co-founder of LGBT conservative group GOProud Jimmy LaSalvia likened being a gay man and “team player” in the Republican Party to being the parent of a crack-addicted teen. In an interview with Raw Story, LaSalvia said that the GOP is going to have to “hit bottom” to break its addiction to bigotry and anti-LGBT hate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/...igotry-is-going-to-kill-the-republican-party/

- - - Updated - - -

Co-founder of LGBT conservative group GOProud Jimmy LaSalvia likened being a gay man and “team player” in the Republican Party to being the parent of a crack-addicted teen. In an interview with Raw Story, LaSalvia said that the GOP is going to have to “hit bottom” to break its addiction to bigotry and anti-LGBT hate.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/15/goproud-co-founder-the-cancer-of-lgbt-bigotry-is-going-to-kill-the-republican-party/

 

What's the point of legalizing same-sex marriage, when civil unions already exist and give gay couples the same rights that straight couples get?

 

Please are you that obtuse. Have we not been all through that already??

The issue of Civil Unions keeps coming up, and it’s most often in the context of “ I support full rights for gays but they should not be able to call it marriage” and “Civil Unions are the same thing, why all the fuss ?” Why all the fuss indeed? First of all there is much in words, especially such a powerful, universally understood word as marriage. A word conveys a status, it means that people who that word applies to have certain rights that others may not have. “Citizen” or Citizenship is another such word. What if the law of the land was, that while all citizens had all the same rights and protections, naturalized citizens could not actually call themselves “Citizens.” Perhaps they could be called “Permanent Civil Residents” Does anyone think that these people would actually feel like real citizens who are full accepted by society? How long would it be before these people got sick of explaining what a “Permanent Civil Resident” is. It would be especially difficult when dealing with people from other countries, or travelling abroad where everyone is just a “citizen” They would have to explain their status every time they applied for a job, applied for a passport, or renewed a drivers license. They would be sure to encounter people who were ignorant of the term, or perhaps looking for a reason to stand in their way and deny them their rights. Get the point?

Secondly, jurisdictions where civil unions exist do not always provide full equality. Now you will say that can be remedied by legislation. Well, I’m here to tell you that is not so easy. A few years ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court mandated that Civil Unionized people have all of the same rights as married people. However, the reality is a different thing” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/nyregion/28civil.html

And you might also want to read http://www.gardenstateequality.org/issues/civilunions/

In addition, under federal law, the disparity is even greater, especially now that DOMA has been overturned but couples who are restricted to civil unions do not benefit from that http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

Lastly, I don’t believe for a nanosecond that those who claim that they support equal rights for gays but not marriage actually want and support equality. They are threatened by the idea of gays being able to call their unions “marriage” because if they did , THEN they would ACTUALLY be equal. All of the hoopla about the word is based on that fear. They must defend at all costs the great and stable institution of traditional marriage where the median age for a woman’s pregnancy is now lower that the median age of marriage and where half of these traditional unions end in divorce. Please consider the possibility that redefining marriage may actually strengthen the institution with an influx of stable relationships , and committed partners. Please consider that married same sex couples will simply blend in and become part of the social fabric. However, if you can’t do that, at least be honest and admit that you really don’t buy the “equality” line either.

Now what do you say?? What exactly is your problem with simple equality?
________________________________________________________________________________

 

Great, so people can believe whatever they want as long as they dont express it in any way. At least not in any way that offends you. Nobody can disagree with the homosexual agenda or they will be "telling lies" or they might be turning others against gays. A person can be a Christian and believe homosexuality is a sin and abnormal, but they can't speak their mind or they might "disparage" someone.

I think I understand you now. You can do and think and say whatever you want, but nobody else can do or think or say anything that you don't like.

I know, you are going to say thats not at all what you wrote, you just want "equality". Such a nice word, equality, but thats not what you are asking for or what you just wrote. You want everyones personal acceptance, not tolerance and equal treatment but their active acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

Sorry, you aren't going to get it. Homosexuality is abnormal in a heterosexual species, and its a sin from a Christian perspective, and its deviant behaviour from a social perspective. Gays can pretend all they want to that they are "married" in search of some boost to their weak self-esteem and mitigate their sense of failure, but nobody is fooled.

 

There is a separation of church and state, meaning that it's not the government's role to enforce morals of a religious nature. If people were voting to legalize gay marriage, would I vote against it? No, because it's not the government's job to enforce morality. However, would I vote in favor of it? No, because I believe that it's morally wrong.

I would just stay neutral. I don't support legalizing gay marriage, but I'm not against it either. I guess I sort of changed my stance on this issue.

 

Good for you! You've made some progress. Your not against marriage equality. And I agree, "it's not the government's role to enforce morals of a religious nature" However, that is what the government is in fact doing when a state passes a ban on same sex marriage. If you believe that it's not the government's role to enforce morals of a religious nature, then you should support SSM.

Do you understand now why civil unions are inadequate?

 

You're misrepresenting me when you claim that I said "people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't express it in any way" There is a civil and appropriate ways to express beliefs and then there is inappropriate ways. Here is an example an inappropriate way from what you just wrote: "Gays can pretend all they want to that they are "married" in search of some boost to their weak self-esteem and mitigate their sense of failure" "weak self-esteem and mitigate their sense of failure!" That's exactly what I'm talking about. That is not civil discourse. It's making disparaging assumptions about a whole group of people . And the principle of civil discourse that applies to everyone equally.

Yes, gays want acceptance and equality. Don't you? What would that look like.? What do you mean by "active" acceptance? Try this, just shut up and stay out of the way. You don't have to actually do anything.

So what exactly is the "homosexual agenda"? Please explain.

 

And that's all any of us really expect.

 

When you write "just shut up and stay out of the way", what you mean is don't speak, don't act, just stay in the closet.

And there you go again with "acceptance". Thats much more than equality. If gays want equal treatment under the tax code, if they want their loved ones to be able to visit them in the hospital, if they want their dependents to be treated as dependents for insurance and benefit purposes, etc, fine. But when they want to force a baker to bake a cake for them, or force a photographer to work their wedding photographs, or denigrate a church because it calls homosexuality a sin or won't "marry" a gay pair, or force a religious charity to stop working because the religion doesn't "accept" homosexuality, then thats not equality or tolerance thats forcing "acceptance".

And don't start with the BS about homosexuality being equal to racism, or being gay is not a choice but genetic. Thats propaganda unless you can show definitive proof (there is none) that being gay is purely genetic.

I can and do work with people I disagree with, I have no problem with "live and let live". In the workplace, its about work, and as long as the gay employee keeps his gay proselityzing to himself and I keep my Christian proselityzing to myself, all is well. If either one of use can't leave the baggage outside the workplace, then that person needs to get another job.

 

If you want to call expecting to be treated equally "forced acceptance" that's fine with me. That baker and photographer can't turn away a person of color based on race and they can't on the basis of sexual orientation, at least not in states where sexual orientation has been legislated as a protected class. If they can't serve everyone equally they need to be in another line of work. This is not to say that it's the same as race but the same civil rights issues are involved. On the other hand, no clergy person who objects to gay marriage has ever been, or will ever be forced to marry a gay couple. You knew that right? I think so, but you use it anyway.

I would like to know from you what gay person or gay rights activist ever insisted that gayness was genetic. If you really think that anyone is pushing that line, it shows how little you really know. To say that it is innate and not a choice does not mean that it has to be a choice. You should read up on human sexuality and learn just how complex it is and how many factors can influence sexual orientation.

 

Thats it right there, out of your own hand. Homosexuality is not on the same footing as race, yet the gay activists have managed to leech the same protections for themselves. Homosexuality has been pormoted to the point of being a protected class and thereby being granted preferential treatment. The gay community gets put ahead of everyone else because it has been able to manipulate the political process. The gay community uses its favoured status to impose its will on others.

Really? I can't believe you would make such a claim - it shows how little YOU really know. Google something like "homosexuality genetic".

Everything having to do with humans is complex, thats not an excuse for homosexuality having special treatment.

 

There is no gay gene....I did not say that there was no philological component http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-c...ity-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb ........ and a gay gene is not a clime that I've heard made

 

There is no federal law classifying homosexuality as a protected class.

What preferential treatment would that be?

Whining, with no support attempted for the statements, which are clearly nothing more than opinions, not fact.

 

Wrong.

In October 2009 federal law expanded (through the Matthew Shephard Act) the "hate crime" law to include gender-identity and sexual orientation.

45 states have "sexual orientation" as a protected class in state law.

There are other laws, federal & state & local, which you can look up yourself, but the point is that you are wrong. Homosexuality is a protected class with unwarranted preferential treatment.

 

What preferential treatment?

 

Beat up a white guy, no big deal. Beat up a white guy who is also gay and the DOJ jumps right in and the MSM is all over it. Beat up a white guy who is also gay, and call him a queer, and the DOJ nd the MSM froth at the mouth in a frenzy and they thumb through hate crimes and civil rights laws listing all the charges they are going to put on the perpetrator. Same crime, but the charges vary based on attitude.

And I love it that all you doe eyed progs ask "what preferential treatment" as if you haven't read the news in the past 10 years.

 

If someone attacks a person BECAUSE they are gay, that is a hate crime. Same applies to a white man being attacked BECAUSE he is white.

So I ask again, what preferential treatment?

 

No, it is not the same. If a person attacks a man because he is gay (or attacks a man who just happens to be gay), the person gets charged with assault and another charge of committing a hate crime, his bail is increased or denied, his penalty is increased if convicted. Attack the mans twin who is not gay, and its only assault. The law is not equally applied - same crime, same damage/injury, different laws.

 

You are mistaken. As you note, what the law protects is sexual orientation; it does not give a preference to homosexuality above other sexual orientations.

Furthermore, your original assertion was that "Homosexuality is not on the same footing as race, yet the gay activists have managed to leech the same protections for themselves." That is a false statement - homosexuality does not enjoy anything approaching the protections afforded to race as a class. U.S. anti-discrimination law protects a number of classes, including race. Homosexuality is not included as a protected class in federal anti-discrimination law.

Chiefly, you have utterly failed to show that homosexuality receives the preferential treatment you allege.