Quantcast

Comments about ‘Role reversal: Gay-rights advocates 'not tolerant'’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 11 2011 11:38 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
johnnylingo62
Gray, TN

The amount of vitriole for "freedom" for such a small minority of anomalies for sexual preference is quite mind boggling. The contention that is being created over this "gay marriage" (not "gay rights" for legal rights) comes from only one source - and it's the opposite from the pure love of Christ.
Bitter, hateful, spiteful name-calling is rampant whenever this topic is broached.
This "movement" for exceptional religious recognition to an alternate lifestyle will find little traction to dissuade anyone from their entrenched position of opposition, yet the battle rages on.... reminds me of the outcome of World War I (the trench war) where the battle lines didn't move, just the body counts continued to rise. In the end, everyone went home defeated and disheartened with malice.

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

A note of correction to my previous post. When the APA put removing homosexuality from the list of DSM mental illnesses, less than 33% percent of the APA voting membership voted to approve this change.

According to Barbara Gittings, a noted gay activist,"It was never a medical decisionand thats why I think the action came so fastIt was a political move. Thats how far weve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.

In their book,After the Ball,Kirk & Madsen explain their plan for gay activists to use the media in their agenda to mainstream homosexuality in the US "The goal here has been to forge a little entente or conspiracy with the power elite, to jump ahead of public sentiment or ignore it altogether. Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which sidestep
the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils . . .constitute political payoffs by elected officials whose candidacy the
organized gay community has supported"

Y-Ask-Y?
Provo, UT

If you don't like homosexual behavior, don't do it.

If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't get one.

But allow all men (and women) the same privilege, let them worship (and marry) how, where, or what they may.

Do not engage in UNjust actions by mingling your religious influence with civil law and deny others their rights to practice their religious and marital rights on an equal footing with your own.

It really is not that complicated.

22ozn44ozglass
Southern Utah, UT

After the Ball cont

"Generally speaking, the most effective propaganda for our cause
must succeed in doing three things at once.· Employ images that desensitize
. . . [T]he rational message serves to camouflage our underlying
emotional appeal . Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and, therefore,
upon their gay sponsors... To be accepted by the most prestigious media, such as network TV, our messages themselves will have to beat least initiallyboth subtle in purpose and crafty in construction

In explaining how to produce idealistic gay advertisements, Kirk and
Madsen state. "[I]t makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because were using them to ethically good effect"

EAO
MINNEAPOLIS, MN

1. One must look at a pattern of historical, long-term oppression to put this into context. Those who identify as GLBT have been persecuted over generations, while those who now claim to be victims have had heterosexual and (usually, but not always) Christian privilege for even longer.

2. One must resist the temptation to take a few exceptions of aggressive behavior and apply it to an entire population, especially when looking at a minority population.

3. One may take note that heterosexual men, usually of a higher profile or position of power, can commit adultery, have affairs, abuse women, etc but no media, no religion, no government regulation either labels ALL such men to be adulters/abusers or creates legislation to prohibit ALL such men from having the rights and privileges that others have. EXAMPLES: Arnold Schwarzenneger, Tiger Woods, What's-His-Name Weiner, Bill Clinton.

4. "The Church" has erred and even bullied (representing the majority culture) in the past: It has used the Bible to condone/support slavery; the Holocaust; witch burnings; and pressuring Native Americans to be Christianized.

Maggie
Saint George, UT

Who did not know this? However,I laud you for having the courage to bring this to the forefront.
Hey,if you just mention that you do not want to comment re GLBT preferences you can get in trouble with them. You are no longer able to NOT comment in their favor or you are attacked as homophopic.
Somedays I just do not want to go out of my house and be in contact with society. You're a racist if you disagree with President Obama and a homphobic if you are not publicly declaring your support of the GLBT movement. A good day is when neither subject presents itself.

Seronac
Orem, UT

RanchHand: "What about the religious rights of those religions that believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry? Their religious rights are being denied and infringed by your religious rights. And Separate But Equal is not equal."

If the believe that way, then they can do that, but my point is that people shouldn't be forced to accept something that is anathema to their beliefs.

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

The anti-gay crowd playing the victim rings hollow with me. Show us your Matthew Shepard. I don't endorse violence or vandalism, but I will remain intolerant of intolerance.

I will agree to disagree, if you agree to live and let live. Is that a deal?

md
Smithfield, UT

Hey Pagan/Pagen, why not Pagin?
You really spend an amazing amount of time trolling this website for anything mentioned about gays, the church and politics so you can cite articles as "proof" that you are correct in your views.
Sad life.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Why is it that no one understands something so very simple. Gays can get married in Utah (YES, even right now!)

But I as a citizen have voted NOT to have the state, a creation of, for, and by the people, recognize their contract.

I vote to sustain what I believe to be moral as do my neighbors. I have religious, secular, and religious supported by secular arguments and beliefs to support my vote.

I being LDS believe that all were given the Agency to choose for ourselves. I do NOT believe in taking someone else's right to choose for themselves. I do not believe I can tell a Gay couple to be straight or to not do as they wish in their own home. They currently have that right and no one has infringed it. They can marry and be as they wish. - But while I respect their right to live peacefully as they wish I demand and will fight for the same right. The masses are showing no ability to reason when they can't see that state recognition of something isn't a right. Proof? The U.N. just 'made' having internet a right. HA!

a man Zed
LOS ANGELES, CA

Belief is one thing, but if you advocate discrimination in the public or business sphere, then being called "bigot" is not persecution. Persecution is denying people their rights in civil society because of their sexual orientation... or religion, for that matter.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

And to the commenter about 'not having the right to oppose gay marriage as it would be like opposing women'.

I certainly do have the right to oppose anything I desire to, including women. I do not oppose women but I certainly have the right to if I wish.

Please, anyone, explain to me where in the constitution you find state recognition of same-sex marriage mentioned in literal writing (as the law requires, yes Roe v Wade was a violation of legal authority, as neither the term 'implied' works in law nor does the Supreme Court have any constitutional authority to exercise judicial review) - where in literal writing do we find any mention of state recognition for same-sex marriage? We don't.

And amazingly we can somehow find words in the constitution that do not exist and people have such outrageous claims to even look over an entire amendment and disregard all of our rights to believe and speak as we wish.

You may disagree with me because you have the right to - I guess for some reason, I lost that right when the masses decided religion was too imposing on them.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, Utah

"Talk about social experiments. Do you have a daughter you'd like to have marry a gay man?"

Well, I would like my daughter to marry someone in the temple. If the gay man is temple worthy, then it shouldn't be an issue. The problem is very few gays are temple worthy (because most hate the Chruch anyway).

And for the record, I am not saying that homosexuals are criminals. I am saying that homosexual acts (including gay marriage) are sins, as God said they are.

I am not taking God's position as judge. I am not judging people. I am merely following His counsel on this matter. Recognizing an act as sin is not the same as taking on oneself the role of Supreme Judge of all mankind.

a man Zed
LOS ANGELES, CA

It's not the LDS role to "accept" other people's civil marriages. Why do they have to pass an LDS religious test?

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

I respect those who disagree; with that, my argument-

How can one take a right away that is not already directly defined in the constitution?

How can one justify the claim that the whole must recognize a minority belief?

How can one justify taking something to court to rule against a vote by the people to amend their constitution?

How can one justify demonizing a religion that has only ever been peaceful and friendly in their disagreement?

How can one justify forcing society to adopt the acceptance of behaviors it does not believe in?

How can one justify saying that people are born a certain way when the only real evidence (being that living beings must be able to reproduce to be a functional living thing) - how can one claim that that their 'version' of number 1 and number 2 equals 1 and 1?

Believe and live as you wish, but forcing me to have to legally agree with you isn't just morally wrong, it will only bring devastation not only to our society and legal structure... you will see, even your own LGBT community will suffer bad legal outcomes because of your own ignorant claims.

Jeff
Temple City, CA

Arguments in favor of same-gender marriage (and any other acceptance of deviant sexuality) revolve around fluidly defined words. "LGBT," for example, is used to represent a specific group, which it doesn't. Both the "B" and the "T" in the acronym are groups with a choice, and only the "B" group is capable of creating children, so the so-called "gay family" is a misnomer.

One definition of "to pervert" is "to turn to an improper use; misapply," in which case all forms of biologically useless sexuality could be considered "perverted."

"Gay" is not an identity. "Gay" has become a political word with a variety of meanings, none of which have been successfully pinned down in any of these threads. "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not identities, either, but represent sexual practices.

"Homophobic" used to mean "having an unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." Now it means (officially in some places) "intolerant of homosexuality." How "phobic" (Greek for "afraid") can mean "intolerant," makes no sense out of a political universe.

For the record, "deviant" means "deviating or departing from the norm," which clearly fits my opening sentence.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

How can one take a right away that is not already directly defined in the constitution?
**The CA Supreme Court said it was a right and we let our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights of others in direct violation of D&C 134:4.

How can one justify the claim that the whole must recognize a minority belief?
**Ask the lovings who wanted inter-racial marriage in the South. They were in the minority.

How can one justify taking something to court to rule against a vote by the people to amend their constitution?
**When that vote violated Equal protection and the spirit of the Loving ruling.

How can one justify demonizing a religion that has only ever been peaceful and friendly in their disagreement?
**Raising half the funds and 90% of the foot soldiers in an organized effort to deny people their EXISTING rights is hardly peaceful and freindly.

How can one justify forcing society to adopt the acceptance of behaviors it does not believe in?
**Again, go ask the Lovings. Southerners didn't believe in mixed race marriage. Perhaps the Court got that decision wrong. Eh?

1Infidel
APO, AE

I don't for a minute believe the proclaimed poll claiming over 50% of Americans support gay marriage. As the article rightly emphasizes, while a few percentage points of people probably openly support gay marriage, it is just or more likely that the others who ended up as statistics in the poll on the "supportive" side did not have an argument to counter it, walked away waving their hands "whatever" or felt that the pollster or those standing by would make judgments about them for stating their true opinion, and thus gave the PC answer before breaking away. Any political science student knows how polls can be written, presented, and parsed, and the demographics leveraged to get the desired responses.

Globetrecker
Arlington, va

Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of alternative/immoral lifestyles to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view--and to silence them by applying labels like "homophobic."

Those who believe behaviors (whether open marriages, homosexuality, incest, etc). are immoral are threatened. Even my little nieces and nephews know that it's not normal acceptable behavior.

I guess my other question would be this: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS OKAY? Men with men? Women with women? If the bible and God teach that it is normal and equal, so be it. But nothing, nowhere, does it teach pro-homosexual acts are normal. But it does teach to follow morals while loving people. But it never, ever says to condone sinful behavior. Never.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Well, Globetrecker, my question would be WHY DO THE REST OF US HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR BIBLE? Why are you so insecure that everyone has to be forced to play by the rules that make you the most comfortable? Wasn't that Lucifer's plan?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments