Had it Up to HERE with the Gay Rights Movement

Published on June 15, 2007 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

I'm pretty much a live and let live kinda guy when it comes to personal lifestyle choices. And I speak up against injustice when it shows up.

But I am sick and tired of the gay rights movement and its attempt to push an agenda.

The truth is gay rights are NOT civil rights. To imply such is to imply that they have been DENIED civil rights. That they have been treated as a second class of citizens, when in fact, they have not. They are subject to the EXACT same laws as straights. There is no separate speed limit for gays, no separate schools, separate water fountains, separate lunch counters. They are not denied the vote, they are not denied any of the Bill of Rights. None of the rights that apply to straights are denied to gays.

What they are trying to do is normalize a behaviour. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply protected status to a behaviour. It was meant to prevent the government from infringing on rights of the people.

That being said, historically there WAS one type of discrimination against gays, but that discrimination has been rectified. I'm talking, of course, about sodomy laws that, while they didn't ban homosexual urges, they did ban expressions of their passion.

If gays want to be regarded as ordinary citizens, they should first ACT like ordinary citizens. As it stands, though, they are asking for specialized status, to be treated with a certain deference and priority that outlaws the thoughts and actions of those who oppose them. If they have their way, eventually churches who oppose their behaviour will be criminalized, ironically further infringing on the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

"Gay rights" is a farce; it's an agenda. And it is an agenda we should wholeheartedly oppose.

Comments (Page 1)

Jythier

on Jun 15, 2007

I agree. I, however, think that people are not either 'gay' or 'straight.' They are people. Some people have sex with men, some with women, some with nobody. It's a preference, and a choice of behaviours. Like a favorite color - you may like purple, but you shouldn't be called a purple-ite. Nobody cares. Nobody should care about that either, except if you're a Christian, in which case God applies which makes everything different. Besides that little caveat, though, there's no reason to even care.

Moderateman

on Jun 15, 2007

if you do not think they are treated as a special class, slap a gay in California, automatically it become a hate crime, just because they are gay and you are not.

Dr Guy

on Jun 15, 2007

As it stands, though, they are asking for specialized status, to be treated with a certain deference and priority that outlaws the thoughts and actions of those who oppose them.

They already are treated that way legally. I know of no laws that state "based upon race, color, creed, or left handedness (a decidedly discriminated sectof the population in the past)". But I know many that include "sexual orientation".

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jun 15, 2007

I'm with ya Gid. It's really bad up here in the North parts.

In our State we VOTED against the gay rights laws THREE times. Then our very Leftist Governor after getting in, felt like we didn't really mean it so he put it in...slipped it in quietly or tried to into the legislature. He was trying to circumvent the people's vote.

We were once more asked to go to the polls but not before many people opposed had to go to the streets to collect the needed signatures to force this to a vote. This time it passed. They finally got their way. I think people jare ust getting worn down and the "agenda" knows it. They are turning into quite a powerful and rich force to be reckoned with.

SanChonino

on Jun 15, 2007

What's that? What's that? You've had it up to HERE?

Or was that HERE?

Or maybe HERE?

I could use some clarification. You've had it up to WHERE, exactly?

jennifer1

on Jun 15, 2007

Well said Gid. It is about time someone spoke out about it. They have a way of shoving their ways and demands in your face whether you like it or not
and their attitude is "to hell with you".

OMGYouRule

on Jun 15, 2007

The definition (according to encyclopedia birtanica) is as follows:

civil-rights movement that advocates equal rights for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals; seeks to eliminate sodomy laws barring homosexual acts between consenting adults; and calls for an end to discrimination against gay men and lesbians in employment, credit lending, housing, public accommodations, and other areas of life.

I think the big openendedness (is that a word?) of this definition (other areas of life statement) is what causes people to get sick of it, as it really could be applied to many things.
IMO, the biggest thing that could be given at this movement is allowing homosexuals to get married or have a civil union of some sort, right now mass is the only state that allows it (I think). I know that many people don't like that, but I say, so what? why shouldn't they be given the same status as other married or civil unioned people? They are people just like everyone else.

I understand that calls for equal opportunity may get a little old, however, I think that it is more the individual homophobic employer or realtor or bank employee etc. that causes the uproar among the gay community. If I weren't hired for a job because I was left handed I would be pretty pissed even if I got hired for a similar job from someone that didn't have anything against left handed people. (Note: I'm in no way saying that being left handed is like being gay, it is just something that I feel I can relate it to for me personally, as I am not gay)

I don't think that homosexuals should be given a specialized status nor outlaw people that oppose them (unless it involves violence, which is wrong against anyone no matter what), but I do think there are still things that the gay community doesn't have that they should (civil union for one, but I'm not sure if I can think of anymore actually), that is just my opinion, please don't bash too bad.

bakerstreet

on Jun 15, 2007

SanChonino beat me to it. Given the topic, and the fact I've never had it at all, I was just wondering... up to where? Normally you point to their neck when you say that, but I'm thinking that isn't physically possible... well, wait...

cactoblasta

on Jun 16, 2007

That's hilarious dude. Gid's had it balls-deep with the gay rights movement, and he can't take it any more!

I'll be sniggering all day.

On topic...

If the reason marriage exists is breeding, then the barren shouldn't be allowed to apply. If the reason marriage exists is financial then any group should be allowed to apply. If the reason is love then it should be open to anyone as well.

I don't see what it would do to straight people to let gay men and women marry. Marriage isn't a sudden invitation for straight people to go buggering they like, so I don't see why it would have that effect for gays. And if it's only financial and legal - which is really what it boils down to when it comes to the state - then anyone should be allowed to choose it. Why should the state care about the sex of its financial members?

It's not legal to deny the vote to gays; why can they be denied the right to the free association recognised by the state?

ParaTed2k

on Jun 16, 2007

I know what you mean. I know people who have been threatened with their jobs if they don't refer to one of the male employees as a woman. He wanted to be a woman, and got irate if someone didn't play along.

Anything that is a right in this country is already afforded people, regardless of sexuality. The activists say they are working towards a day when sexuality doesn't matter, but from what I've seen, it seems that's the only thing they think should matter.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 16, 2007

If the reason marriage exists is breeding, then the barren shouldn't be allowed to apply. If the reason marriage exists is financial then any group should be allowed to apply. If the reason is love then it should be open to anyone as well.

Actually, honestly, cacto, I believe that government should get out of the marriage business entirely. But I said the MAIN reason was because a child could result, not the ONLY reason.

At any rate, I believe marriage is a matter between participants and that government should butt out

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2007

JYTHIER POSTS: I agree. I, however, think that people are not either 'gay' or 'straight.' They are people.

I think the same way.....

But, FOR POWER, homosexual activists and the far left deliberately divide people into groups, portray themselves as victims and in need of legislation to protect the practice of homosexuality and make that acceptable and respectable It's all sophistry, including using these very words, 'gay' and 'straight'. C'mon. I've gotten off this game wheel quite a long time ago.

JYTHIER POSTS: It's a preference, and a choice of behaviours. Like a favorite color - you may like purple, but you shouldn't be called a purple-ite. Nobody cares. Nobody should care about that either, except if you're a Christian, in which case God applies which makes everything different. Besides that little caveat, though, there's no reason to even care.

this is where I disagee. It becomes a whole different ball of wax once these sexual behaviors were codified into law and i'm punished by fines, lawsuits or jail time for preferring the better business plan of a wanting a lawfully married (as in one man/one woman) couple rather than 2 men or 2 women to live in my rental.

One's religious beliefs aside, another reason to care is in the case of federal and state policies banning homosexuals as blood donors. The homosexual powers that be and their advocates are challenging this as we speak. Tell me, in this case if there is no reason to care, who when needing blood would prefer taking blood from a homosexual over the other guy?

bakerstreet

on Jun 16, 2007

"At any rate, I believe marriage is a matter between participants and that government should butt out"

Government at some level has to regulate marriage, even in a libertarian ideal situation without government benefits, etc. There has to be some means of stopping men who keep more than one household behind their wives' backs, settling divorces, child support, etc., right?

While not necessarily licensed, marriage has been regulated, or at least mediated, for as long as we've had recorded history.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2007

MM POSTS:

if you do not think they are treated as a special class, slap a gay in California, automatically it become a hate crime, just because they are gay and you are not.

Isn't this the truth.

Slapping anyone is a crime, but to get extra time or punishment just becasue of the victim's real or perceived sexual behavior, c'mon...that goes beyond the beyond. Hate crimes laws are unjust, pure and simple....but that's what we are dealing with folks.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 16, 2007

As it stands, though, they are asking for specialized status, to be treated with a certain deference and priority that outlaws the thoughts and actions of those who oppose them.

They already are treated that way legally. I know of no laws that state "based upon race, color, creed, or left handedness (a decidedly discriminated sectof the population in the past)". But I know many that include "sexual orientation".

"sexual orientation" is a construct of the homosexual movement through their lobbyists, government on all levels have bought into it. Every definition I've seen on legislative proposals identify "Sexual orientation" as homosexualITY, bisexualITY, etc. In other words, they are referring to a sexual behavior.

What's the difference between a person's race, color, creed, and "sexual orientation"? A person's race, color and creed is an innate characteristic that can't be changed, while sexual behavior isn't. An Asian person doesn't go to bed and wake up a Caucasion.

"Sexual orientation" has no business whatsoever of being on that list.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!