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 3)

lulapilgrim

on Jun 18, 2007

What if Utah disallowed marriage between Catholic or Muslim individuals because Mormonism is the approved religion of the state? What if any other state disallowed marriage (or other rights) to Muslims, Baptists or Protestants?

If I'm not mistaken, the federal government is prohibited from making such laws, however States have the constitutional right to do so.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 18, 2007

I cannot speak for any other country, but this is a specious argument in the US. A power of attorney can be written on the back of a cocktail napkin (if need be) and as long as it's signed and notarized (a notary's service costs about five bucks) it is enforceable, so save the 'poor dying queer being denied the comfort of his lover' scenario because it's just not happening, and if it is, it's due to the lack of foresight on THEIR part for not having said power of attorney in place ahead of time.

This is it, LW, I hadn't read through the thread before I posted basically the same as you've so well laid out here.

Jythier

on Jun 18, 2007

The only thing that's missing is the health insurance - can gay couples get health insurance for their partner through work like a married couple can?

I think, if we gave them that, between that and the power of attorney, they have everything we have. Except, if I remember correctly, a power of attorney can be revoked. So, say that any person with a same sex partner can have spousal insurance benifits if they are unmarried and have power of attorney for their partner. What do you think, good enough? Anything else missing?

lulapilgrim

on Jun 18, 2007

SUSPECKTED POSTS:

I just don't really understand how the gay rights movement is affecting you personally. What is the agenda that you feel the gay-rights movement is trying to push? What is the "certain deference and priority that outlaws the thoughts and action of those who oppose them" that you feel THEY are asking for?

The beginning of the organized homosexual movement can be traced to the "Stonewall Riot" in June, 1969. It amounted to NYPD raid on a homosexual bar. Ever since then the event is celebrated with the "gay pride" days. In 1972, the Gay Rights Platform was written listing specific goals for their agenda. Since then the goals have been added and amended with the primary goal of full acceptance in all venues of society.

In 1993, the Gay Rights Movement made demands setting their agenda. These are a few:

1. Civil rights as a "protected group" yet they don't meet the criteria the other minority groups (as Blacks or women) have been required. a) have a history of unjust discrimination showing a lack of ability to achieve economic status, adequate education, or cultural opportunity.

the group must exhibit obvious immutable characteristics such as race or gender. c) the group must be politically powerless.

2. Sex education that indoctrinates homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle in all public schools in all levels Kindergarten through 12th grades.

3. Repeal of various sexual criminal penalties (which amounts to changing society's sexual mores).

4. Stiffer penalties for Hate Crimes.

5. Redefinition of lawful Marriage and Family

6. Increase amount of federal spending on AIDS research.

7. Acceptance of homosexuality as normal by the medical and psychological communities.

8. Lift ban on homosexuality in the military.

9. The right to adopt children.

Troy Ruiz

on Jun 18, 2007

As a man with dark skin, I would have to say that I do not endorse descrimination of any kind. Not against gays or straights for any reason. However, I do think that they Gay Rights Movement would garner more support if, during the parades, they wouldn't dress up like CHEERLEADERS!

If they really wanted their civil rights protected, why not march in Armani suits. Flamboyancy during a parade is the same as giving the rest of us THE FINGER! I don't respect that.

Also, no one talks about the rise of AIDS in young gay men in this country, and the perception among some Gays that AIDS is a rite of passage. Sure we have drugs that can prolonge death, but it is still a very painful death.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 18, 2007

However, I do think that they Gay Rights Movement would garner more support if, during the parades, they wouldn't dress up like CHEERLEADERS!

LOL...well said!

ParaTed2k

on Jun 28, 2007

Um, "Mormonism" isn't the "approved" religion of the state of Utah. In fact, Salt Lake City isn't even half Mormon anymore.

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

lulapilgrimJune 16, 2007 23:22:29Reply #18
OMGYOURULE POSTS:

Legitimizing homo-sex unions of any kind fulfill none of the requirements that would make them a social good necessitating state benefits. Nor should the State show support for a union that cannot perpetuate society. By doing so, the State becomes its active promoter and works against the common good.

Where will allowing gays to wed prevent heterosexual to have children?

Or prevent un-wedded heterosexual to have children?

Lousy argument, I'd say. You understate that giving a right to wed to homosexual will prevent the society to have children, and prevent us from perpetuating?

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

but you can't deny that plenty of queers (using this term as has been deemed appropriate by gay friends) have been harassed, threatened, beaten, and killed just because they were gay.

Yes, and people BROKE THE LAW in harassing, threatening, beating, and killing them, suspeckted. And they should pay the SAME PRICE as if they hit a straight person.

However, since the gay are a peticular target for hate crime (it is certain there are some "fag-bashing party" made by some, as the KKK did against blacks before), it would only be fair to give them special legal protection, or at least, legal retaliation until homosexuality is completely accepted, or at least, the assaulted rate among the gay population has been bringed down to an acceptable level.

And how can a gay that suffer discrimination from the legal system in a village calls for his rights? If he blow the whisle, his like will become hell, since he'll publicly admit homosexuality in a queer-hostile environment.

SanChonino

on Jun 29, 2007

You understate that giving a right to wed to homosexual will prevent the society to have children, and prevent us from perpetuating?

You see, Cikomyr, it's because if they make it legal, we're all going to automatically become gays, regardless of how we feel now.

Jythier

on Jun 29, 2007

My wife will be so disappointed.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 29, 2007

Marriage laws as they are written do not discriminate against anyone. They allow any man and woman who agree to get married to do so. They don't single out anyone based on race, religion, creed, nation of origin, skin color, or sexual orientation. The "gay rights" movement is actually protesting the fact that they are treated equally under the law.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 29, 2007

lulapilgrimJune 16, 2007 23:22:29Reply #18
OMGYOURULE POSTS:

Legitimizing homo-sex unions of any kind fulfill none of the requirements that would make them a social good necessitating state benefits. Nor should the State show support for a union that cannot perpetuate society. By doing so, the State becomes its active promoter and works against the common good.

Where will allowing gays to wed prevent heterosexual to have children?

Or prevent un-wedded heterosexual to have children?

Lousy argument, I'd say. You understate that giving a right to wed to homosexual will prevent the society to have children, and prevent us from perpetuating?

Cikomyr,

Welcome to the discussion.

Your comments/questions indicate that you may have misunderstood my point in reply # 18. I didn't say nor would say that giving 'marriage' rights to homosexuals would prevent married people from having children.

I cited some good reasons why it is not in best interests of the common good of society for the State to officially support, condone, approve and normalize homosexual "marriage".

Now, added to those reasons I cited in reply #38, here is another one. The Netherlands, has legalized homosex "marriage" for several years now and studies have shown that the average relationship has lasted 1.5 years. The reason is that homosexual men, in particular, have a difficult time honoring even the most basic commitments to "marriage" and that is fidelty. Homosexual men on average have 8 sexual partners per year outside of their primary relationship. This is taken from a 2003 study done on HIV/AIDS and homosexual men.

This adds another good reason why the State has no compelling interest in redefining marriage an institution that for millennia, has been celebrated by every culture on earth as athe cornerstone of society.

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

The same can't be said for homo-sex relationships which developed from a lack of moral restraint toward social norms and fidelity. Not all, but generally this sector of the population suffer from abnormally high levels of physical and mental health problems, repeated sexual diseases, alcoholism and drug use, suicide rates, domestic abuse, decreased life spans, child abuse and molestation.

Most of these social problems suffered by the gay community is because of the rejection caused by a large majority of the society. How is treated a gay teenager in his high school?? I'd say it's a miracle he won't suicide!!

The reason is that homosexual men, in particular, have a difficult time honoring even the most basic commitments to "marriage" and that is fidelty. Homosexual men on average have 8 sexual partners per year outside of their primary relationship. This is taken from a 2003 study done on HIV/AIDS and homosexual men.

Are you stating that the whole gay community is men? Gosh, I have a few ladyfriend who would be appalled.

And your whole example is baseless. It's like doing a survey on Las Vegas's weddings, and extrapolating general tendencies from this survey.

Your comments/questions indicate that you may have misunderstood my point in reply # 18. I didn't say nor would say that giving 'marriage' rights to homosexuals would prevent married people from having children.

And you don'T seem to understand mine. Even IF, and I say IF, your arguments are right: Why prevent these people from wedding because of it? What will we loose if gay are freely allowed to marry?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 29, 2007

The bigger question is what would society gain?

For the laws to change so dramatically, that State would have to show the change brought a common good to society....what would that common good be given all we know about the negative effects of homosexuality?

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!