Published: Sunday, May 29 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT
Denying a basic civil right to law-abiding American citizens because they don't
share in your religious beliefs is not "agreeing to disagree." It's
more like, "My way or the highway."You are attempting to
force your own religious rules on people who do not share your religion. You
therefore shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism for
arguing that position.Genuinely "agreeing to disagree"
would be for those who don't want to marry someone of the same sex to have the
right to not do so, and allowing those who do to follow their hearts and
participate in the same civil rights and public expressions of commitment that
you take for granted.
I appreciate the point you are trying to make here, but there are a few logical
inconsistencies I take issue with. Mainly, "agree to disagree" is
basically a one way street. If we are going to agree to disagree, than go ahead
and perform only straight marriages at your church and my church can continue to
officiate both gay and straight marriages and the state can recognize them all
equally - we can agree do disagree. Instead Peter and others campaigned to
force everyone else to live by their religious beliefs and take a right away
from gay couples in California and take religious freedom from my church.Furthermore, while I am against someone losing their job over a
political position, this was a very unique case. Peter was not a sales person
or accountant. He was an ambassador for the IOC. One of the job requirements is
to represent the values of the IOC. This includes equality for all people
(right there in the bylaws). By taking the position he did, Peter actually came
into direct conflict with the values he was sworn to represent in his role. In
this case, an amicable split is best for both sides.
I thought this was a calm, pretty evenhanded approach to this issue.
Disappointed to see the scathing attacks ensued. There clearly can never be a
dialog on this issue.
Blue and sptsjunkie, the central point of the editorial wasn't which position is
right and which is wrong, it is that the debate should be civil, and a person
shouldn't be pressured, intimidated or punished for their position. Clearly,
Vidmar was pressured.On a separate point, the "right" you
feel should be granted or say has been taken away -- the right to marry -- was
for a moment in time, in a specific place, and historically has not recognized
as a right. The pairings you speak of, by their very nature, have and never
will produce offspring. That makes them different than marriages from the
beginning of time. Whether those unions should receive all or some of the same
benefits as a heterosexual couple (such as the rights of visitation, bequest,
inheritance, employment, shelter, rent, own, etc.) is a debate of our day, maybe
THE debate of our day -- and everyone should be able to participate in that
debate freely and without reprisal.
The poster above said, It's more like, "My way or the highway."Yep that is exactly what the pro gay marriage crowd says. Don't disagree with us or we will force you out of your job even though you
were doing an excellent job.
I like Peter Vidmar and wish him the best but it's easy for me to see why many
would feel he is not appropriate for the job. If Peter were to happen to
believe certain members of society due to race are unable to marry we would
never say in this day and age that it's fine to disagree. Better yet, if Peter
were to say single parents, divorcees, former child abusers, etc. should not
have the right to remarry or raise kids, we'd also likely chase him out of the
position. I'm not saying being gay is analogous to any of the above but I do
feel putting it in this context allows us to more easily understand what those
who believe in and support gay marriage are saying. They feel marriage is a
fundamental right and opportunity and see any opposition to that as denying
basic rights to a segment of Americans, which is very un-American. I initially
disagreed with their position but after doing my own study and research have
come to agree and even feel Peter is best moving on.
The editorial is dead on! Suggesting that the position of disagreeing is
somehow "forcing" religion or views on the rest of society is exactly
how I feel about the "gay agenda". I'm willing to "agree to
disagree" but it sounds like many in the gay community are not. Surprise
Gestapo tactics are alive and well in America. No opposition will be tolerated,
period. In the words of "Blue," it is "my way or the
highway." Peter knows this well.
Well,in "my" social organization we don't agree with the traffic laws.
We maintain that it is our "right" to exceed the speed limit because
it is in our bylaws. One of our members has a different opinion - he/she
believes that we should obey the law because it was established by a majority
vote of the people and because that majority believe it is in the public
interest to have speed limits in order to protect the lives and rights of
others, as established by long held traditions and by majority vote of
"all" the citizens of society in general. Well, baloney on
that! Let's get rid of the bum. It is our right to exceed the speed limit and
anyone who does not agree with us should be vilified and fired - and that
includes the Chief of Police, the County Sheriff and all those police officers
who hide along the highways and try to catch me when I drive faster than the
posted speed, etc., etc., etc.Ballot Box??? Why should I agree with
a Ballet Box? I am right and the majority is wrong.
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As
the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of
world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what
he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that
virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were
preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by
the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.When marriage loses its
unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving
same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special
status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right
but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of
marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the
assault on marriage.
Same-sex marriage is not a right. This whole question has nothing whatsoever to
do with rights. It is a question about how marriage is defined. Marriage laws at
the moment are not discriminatory at all. Anybody, regardless of their sexual
orientation, can get married. It's just that the marriage must be between a man
and a woman if it is going to be a valid one and recognized under statutory
law.Not even all possible heterosexual combinations are valid under
the definition of marriage. Men cannot marry their mothers, sisters, or
daughters. Women cannot marry their fathers, brothers, or sons. People cannot
marry more than one person of the opposite sex at the same time.I
repeat that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. Those who
demand same-sex marriage want legitimacy for it. I think it is clear they will
settle for nothing less.
No one is being denied a civil right. I'm sick of hearing gay marriage called a
civil rights issue. It's your behavior that makes it so you can't get married.
It's not the color of your skin or your gender that is causing problems, its
your sexual behavior. If you want to live together thats fine but marriage is
between a man and a woman. Gay people can't have children. I guess
nature is discriminating. Even if gays can change common law they will never
change the laws of nature.
glbt...they have all the tolerence in the world, as long as you go along with
their way of thinking. the more in your face they are the more the vast majority
of people will dig in their heels. having vidmar step down is really going to
help their cause....in what way? the 1.8% that are gay (according to the latest
reports) will continue to throw temper tantrums until the 98% of straights put
their collective foot down and say enough is enough.
If you disagree with a gay person, you are a homophobe and hate them, right?
As usual, any news article or person who puts forth any effort to defend the
traditional definition of marriage and resists efforts to change what society
accepts as a "family", will be pilloried by many who advocate gay
marriage.As the first two comments here show, they will be painted
as religious bigots who would deny basic human rights and are "forcing
everyone else to live by their religious beliefs".Like it or
not, every adult (man or woman) in this country has the same right - find one
adult person of the opposite sex who wants to marry you and get married.We can all argue until we are blue in the face if gay marriage is a
whole new "special" right or just a reinterpretation of this existing
right. We can also argue all night about if gay marriage will change the basic
fabric of our society or if it will have absolutely no effect on traditional
marriages.Neither side of this argument will budge on those two
issues. Like the article states, we should agree to disagree and use the
legislative and judicial system to promote our views and have some respect for
the other side.
@Blue 12:22You said - "You are attempting to force your own
religious rules on people who do not share your religion. You therefore
shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism for arguing that
position."Ironic comment, considering groups like Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State are quick to go after any church
congregation which says anything political on the right, while totally ignorning
liberal churches which engage in many more political issues than any
conservative church ever has.In other words, it's okay to force your
religion on others, so long as your religion meets the standard of political
correctness.@sptsjunkie 1:57You said - "...agree to
disagree is basically a one way street."You're absolutely
correct. The one way street is simple. The right must be tolerant and open to
everyone, while the left can be as intolerant, hateful and hurtful as they want.
The right says, "Agree to disagree" while the left says,
"You disagree with us and your a close-minded, bigoted, neocon idiot."
I'm afraid I'm not going to give up my first amendment rights to please people
who spent quite a bit of money to strip me of my right to marry.1.
I will not spend money at the business of a pro prop. 8 donor.2. I will
question the wisdom of putting a pro prop. 8 donor in a position of power.Both of these things are well within my rights of free speech and I
refuse to give them up under the guise of "agreeing to disagree".
No one has established that two people marrying one another even if they don't
meet the requirements is a basic human right. Peter Vidmar believes that
marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not something that is specific
to his religion. 80% of the world's cultures have the same view.History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme and but what I see in the
arguments about gay marriage rhymes with McCarthyism where people were being
fired because they weren't politically correct with the standards of the
The IOC does NOT support equality for all based on your definition. Events are
segregated -- by gender. To hold the belief that marriage should retain its age
old definition of a union of a husband and wife is no more bigoted, hateful or
radical than saying than men should compete against men and women against women.
sptsjunkie,Your arguments do not hold water...you state that
'agreeing to disagree' is not a stance which can be taken. The only position
you will accept is your position, which by defination is not working
together.You have your point-of-view but do not allow the opposite
point-of-view to be part of the decussion. Shame on you.Peter's
position was and has never been part of his leading of the IOC team. You are
jumping from one lilly pad to another without any connectability. You should reflect on the things you have stated and re-evaluate.Plain and simple, your attitude does not help with either sides position.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments