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 4)

lulapilgrim

on Jun 29, 2007

Are you stating that the whole gay community is men?

no, of course not. It's just that I had that study to refer to and it helped make my point. In general, homosexual men are more promiscuous than women...and then there are some who have held long monogamous relationships as well. I know that, but I'm speaking in generalities.

When talking about changing something as important as marriage law, the whole picture has to be taken into account...and it does not bode well for the homosexual lifestyle which some call a deathstyle and for good reason.

lulapilgrim

on Jun 29, 2007

Most of these social problems suffered by the gay community is because of the rejection caused by a large majority of the society.

No, this is a myth.

If you go back to the Netherlands, which is a very progressive country, very tolerant and accepting of the homosexual lifestyle, allowing 'marriage', etc.

Yet, the percentages of social, physical and health problems remain proportionately the same. The median male homosexual life span is forty years. The big selling idea in the Netherlands was to allow them to marry hoping they'd live longer and their health would improve. Nope, it hasn't worked that way. We can learn much from the Netherlands in this regard.

So, if we take an honest look at the empirical data regarding homosexuality, the correct public stance would be to discourage it not encourage it. The acceptance of homosexual 'marriage' would be the wrong direction for our country.

Cikomyr

on Jun 29, 2007

Yet, the percentages of social, physical and health problems remain proportionately the same. The median male homosexual life span is forty years. The big selling idea in the Netherlands was to allow them to marry hoping they'd live longer and their health would improve. Nope, it hasn't worked that way. We can learn much from the Netherlands in this regard.

It has been officially accepted, but I would like to have the say of an homosexual dutch, to ask him if it is really accepted by every layer of society..?

Or, on paper, it's tolerated, but young homosexuals are still traumatized trough high school?

Which means you totally darken about half of the gay community

The bigger question is what would society gain?

The non-presence of any discrimination about allowing institution on a portion of your society.

No "exception" left behind.

But except for this, you have nothing to gain, except a more equal world for everyone.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 29, 2007

Or, on paper, it's tolerated, but young homosexuals are still traumatized trough high school?

So let's make criminals out of kids because they don't believe homosexuality is proper. As I said before, it's about giving homosexuals a SPECIAL SET of rights, which is wrong!

Cikomyr

on Jun 30, 2007

So let's make criminals out of kids because they don't believe homosexuality is proper.

stop using populism as arguments. You don't make kids accept homosexualy among their school by stapling them as "criminal".

You do by no educating them into thinking that being homosexual is something to either be shameful of, or something wrong. When kids will discovers that absolutely is different between an heterosexual and an homosexual - no more than there is between a black and a white -, then they will stop pointing the finger laughing.

As I said before, it's about giving homosexuals a SPECIAL SET of rights, which is wrong!

We are talking about giving gays the right to marry. Where is that a special set of right? They aren't allowed to marry in many states, which makes them a sub-par portion of the population.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 30, 2007

When kids will discovers that absolutely is different between an heterosexual and an homosexual - no more than there is between a black and a white -, then they will stop pointing the finger laughing.

Oh, PLEASE, cikomyr. What you are proposing is a ban on certain religions. The first amendment only applies to thought that agrees with YOURS? You say you're not attacking Christianity, yet words like this prove it. There ARE passages in BOTH the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible that state that homosexuality is sinful, as well as in the Qu'ran. For political correctness' sake, though, we are to OUTLAW these books and those who teach them as an ideology?

No, it's better to teach people that regardless of WHAT they think of someone else's lifestyle, they do not have the right to persecute them. INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS.

We are talking about giving gays the right to marry. Where is that a special set of right? They aren't allowed to marry in many states, which makes them a sub-par portion of the population.

Gays have the same right to marry as straights. It's just that the people whom they have a right to marry are not people they choose to marry.

Do we have to prove a sexual relationship to give two people of the same gender the right to marry, or can "marriages of convenience" occur? Will same sex roommates who live together for five years be considered common law married in your utopia? If not, why not? The law becomes quite convoluted once you redefine marriage from the way it has been defined for many, many years, and honestly, there are NO rights that homosexual couples would gain through the right to marry that they don't have already, regardless of how you want to spin it.

Are you in favor of polygamy, Cikomyr? Polyandry? IF not, WHY not? Don't polygamous couples have the same rights?

I believe the government should be morally neutral on the issue of marriage, neither supporting it nor opposing it. Marriage should be between the participants in the marriage and their God, where applicable.

ParaTed2k

on Jul 02, 2007

Have we really gotten to the point in our society where if you don't make exceptions for specific people, you are discriminating against them? Talk about backward logic!

Dr Guy

on Jul 02, 2007

Don't polygamous couples have the same rights?

The do in Holland.

Cikomyr

on Jul 05, 2007

Not outlawing them, just making them irrelevant with proper education will be ennough. That way, no gay will fear being beaten up because he is gay - which still happens -.

Gays have the same right to marry as straights. It's just that the people whom they have a right to marry are not people they choose to marry.

ehh.. sorry. Can you rephrase..?

Do we have to prove a sexual relationship to give two people of the same gender the right to marry, or can "marriages of convenience" occur? Will same sex roommates who live together for five years be considered common law married in your utopia? If not, why not? The law becomes quite convoluted once you redefine marriage from the way it has been defined for many, many years, and honestly, there are NO rights that homosexual couples would gain through the right to marry that they don't have already, regardless of how you want to spin it.

You're taking a strange tangent. We are simply talking about two men (or women) going to the church and taking the Vows, as in their youth dream.

I am not talking about considering a roommate someone married, or anything like it. And I would like to know what is the "definition of marriage as it has been for many, many year" except wanting to live with someone for the rest of your life and rising children with it?

I would like to know your side of the argument. I mean, you can live with someone all your life and rising children without being married, and you can be married and not respecting these things. So why is it important to some to be married?

Then why it could not be as important to gays?

Are you in favor of polygamy, Cikomyr? Polyandry? IF not, WHY not? Don't polygamous couples have the same rights?

Again, your point is totally irrelevent to the topic. I don't see the link between them and homosexuality.

If I remember right, Polygamy is forbidden in the constitution (I really don't know). Homosexuality is not. Period.

I believe the government should be morally neutral on the issue of marriage, neither supporting it nor opposing it. Marriage should be between the participants in the marriage and their God, where applicable.

Right. And what about the states that forbidden gay marriage?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jul 06, 2007

If I remember right, Polygamy is forbidden in the constitution (I really don't know).

Uh, NO! That's HILARIOUS that you would even THINK that, cikomyr!

Discussing the rights of polygamists is NOT off topic, cikomyr...they both have to do with the rights of consenting adults to do as they wish.

You've reinforced my opinion that bigotry knows no ideological boundaries, cikomyr. You're one of the most virulent bigots I have ever encountered...you're just too sheepishly caught up in the "political correctness" of the left to realize it.

Cikomyr

on Jul 06, 2007

then why was Utha forced to abandon polygamy to enter the Union?

Dr Guy

on Jul 06, 2007

then why was Utha forced to abandon polygamy to enter the Union?

Societal pressures. The constitution does not define all the laws, and to enter the Union, a state must garner a majority support of the existing states. They can reject a state for being too cold. There is no defined reason on why a state can vote against admission of another.

At the time (and to this day), society viewed Polygamy with distaste and would not have allowed Utah in for that reason. However, the constitution does not require them to have abolished it.

Jythier

on Jul 06, 2007

Man, if we let these people win, they will all be bored. What will they fight for next? Do you think they will just lay down and say, we got what we wanted? No. And if they don't, there will be someone else coming behind them, saying, well, if these two men can marry each other, and these two women can marry each other, why can't I, a man, marry her, my cousin? Or sister? Or daughter? Well, why not? Do you know why not? Maybe they're in love! They deserve the same rights as the rest of us, don't they? These people have been oppressed for too long. Incest rights!

Just answer me this question: "If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"

lulapilgrim

on Jul 06, 2007

CIKOMYR POSTS:

then why was Utha forced to abandon polygamy to enter the Union?

Here's a little history on this:

The Mormons of Utah believe that polygamy is the divine pattern of marriage.

In 1847, Brigham Young and his saints moved from Illinois and settled in the desert valley of the Great Salt Lake, then a part of Mexico.

In 1853, polygamy was openly practiced and defended claiming that Joseph Smith received the revelation on plural marriage at Nauvoo in 1843.

Opposition by the federal government to the practice of polygamy was registered in 1862 by Pres. Lincoln when he signed a bill condemning it in the Territories of the US. Pres. Garfielf in his inaugural address condemned polygamy and in 1890, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the Edmunds Law of 1882 which disfranchised any person who practiced plural marriage.

When Utah finally won statehood in 1896, it was on the condition that polygamy be forever prohibited in the territory.

From what I understand the Church of the LDS has never renounced its belief in polygamy. It has only become a 'suspended' doctrine. I think if the federal government were to ever withdraw its opposition to plural marraiges, the LDS would resume the practice.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 06, 2007

ust answer me this question: "If all men were brothers, would you let one marry your sister?"

Yah, you've identified the slippery slope, but who cares?

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!