Published: Monday, May 20 2013 9:00 a.m. MDT
This that appose gay rights seem to have this notion that we must sit and allow
people to make what we consider inaccurate and false claims? Since when did
challenging someone’s claims become discrimination? Should BYU be labeled
as intolerant for not inviting the head of the atheist society to not give the
commencement speech? This man has the right to express his points of view,
others have the right to challenge that view and to voice their desire to not
have their institution associated with such views. He was not forced out he made
the choice to pull out and play the victim when his views were challenged.
Dr. Carson's comments were "controversial"? To whom? Isn't the
pro-gay marriage stance controversial to those who support traditional marriage
and the sanctity of marriage? Let's leave the word "controversy"
out of the conversation.
Liberals are champions of free speech as long as you agree with them.
Oh, for heaven's sake."Free speech" does not mean
"speech without consequences".Nobody has forced anybody to
stop saying anyting they believe in. The folks at Hopkins simply exercised THEIR
First Amendment rights to speak against someone they didn't agree with. In fact, it's MORE appropriate to say that gay boy scouts are
having their freedom of speech suppressed by the BSA, because they know
they'll be thrown out if they openly admit to being gay. That *is* force --
but in Carson's case, he withdrew voluntarily.People get
invited to commencement speeches specifically because other people want to hear
what they have to say. In this case, the Hopkins folks decided they did NOT want
to hear what Carson had to say, and Carson himself chose to bow out. That sort
of thing happens all the time, with all sorts of different issues. This is just another case of anti-gay people disingenuously trying to play the
You argue for free speech and yet condemn the students for voicing their own
How many of you anti-gay folks would have been willing to have this man speak if
his words were the following: "We shouldn't allow Mormons to marry
because they're a cult and only 2.5% of the US population and we don't
want to perpetuate a cult."?Be honest now.
The ironic thing is that the gays are not wanting Tolerance, they want
Acceptance. Those are not synonyms.What we see here is that for
liberals, if you support their ideas they will accept you. If you don't
support them they will not tolerate you.To "atl134" free
speech is not the issue here. The issue is tolerance, and specifically from a
group that claims to want tolerance not tolerating an opposing view.
George,help me out a little, please,"This that appose gay
rights"what do you mean? what is the word "appose", and
what is your sentence structure? I cannot make sense of it.thanksDid you mean "Those that oppose..."? That would
make more sense, though I know of no one denying gays the same rights the rest
of us enjoy.
The problem with those "supporting traditional marriage" is that that is
not what they do. If they want to stand up and talk about how wonderful
marriage is, no one would feel compelled to protest their remarks. Instead,
they rail against "non-traditional" marriage. Thus, they are not being
booed for what they support for themselves, but what they condemn for others.
There is a difference.
@lostHow clever to pick up on my sloppy writing, it seems the other
ten people (and counting) that agrees with my comment had no problem working
through it. Once again your comment is more a poor reflection on you then anyone
Contrarius: The first thing a person from another planet would say after
reading a morning newspaper: "This society is pre-occupied about something
called 'gay' earthlings. They must be kings or something, for I
don't see any other earthlings that are talked about so much, for no
apparent reason for doing so. This society regularly discards their babies, but
don't seem the least bit interested in their screams, but listen very
intently when these other people talk. We must study them to find out why all
life seems to be centered around them. All earthlings look the same, but these
earthlings are always trying to get people to talk about them."
What did Mr. Carson say? "My thoughts are that marriage is
between a man and a woman," he said. "It’s a well-established,
fundamental pillar of society, and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be
they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn’t matter what they are
-- they don’t get to change the definition." Lumping gays
in with pedophiles and bestiality is totally inappropriate, and Mr. Carson
should know better. But all too often this type of talk is accepted in the
@Redshirt"The issue is tolerance, and specifically from a group that
claims to want tolerance not tolerating an opposing view."Last I
checked he voluntarily withdrew. He wasn't booted from the position.
@George@ContrariusCarson was not even allowed to speak.How can you have freedom of speech, when you are prevented from
How in blazes was gay marriage going to be a subject in a graduation speech?
Re:ThetruthFreedom of Speech doesn't mean everybody/anybody
gets a invitation to speak at every/any prominent event.Mr. Carson
expressed himself on Sean Hannity's program, and at CPAC, apparently he is
"luckier" than most people.
Last I checked, we are all allowed our own viewpoints and opinions. Labeling
any of them as "controversial" is wrong.
@the truthWas not lowed to speak? Did you read the article? He choose to
back out, his choice.
Truthseeker: Is a polygamist on par with 'gay' marriage? I don't
want you to cite laws, which can be totally unjust, evil, etc., Wade versus Roe
comes to mind. Considering how discriminated gays feel, how could they deny a
polygamist his/her right without hypocrisy screaming at them?
To "atl134" read the news articles again about what occurred.He withdrew because of the attacks by the liberals who claim to want
tolerance. Don't you find it ironic that the liberals who claim to want
tolerance couldn't tolerate a viewpoint that did not accept gay marriage?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments