Well, I'm opposed to firemen being forced by their bosses to participate in any
parade that violates their beliefs--and I'm a supporter of the so-called "gay
agenda." However, remember it was WorldNetDaily that reported
this--not exactly an objective news source.Also, remember, even if
this were true, it wasn't the "evil" gays and lesbians who ordered the firemen
@ 3:27 and 4:30,You've both asked similar questions, so I'll both
respond to both at the same time. Many of my ancestors were
alcoholics. Many made serious mistakes because of their inability to stay away
from alcohol. However, when sentences were passed, the judge never factored in
the possibility that their alcoholism was caused by a gene or the possibility
that the alcoholism was caused by environment or the possibility that the
alcoholism was simply a choice made by the individual. The judge only looked at
the law and passed sentence based on the harm done to society.When I
look at conduct, I look far down the road and try to determine what would happen
if 100% of the population chose that conduct. If the conduct has no apparent
harmful effects, then I'm neutral about that conduct. However, if the conduct
shows either good or bad effects on society, then I form an opinion based on the
consequences of that conduct.If 100% of the population practiced
homosexuality exclusively, the human race would become extinct. That is a very
negative effect. Any positive effects could never offset that major negative
effect.Deviation from the norm would destroy humanity.
Boy our anti-neocon sure love his lists, even if they don't actually prove
anything but far downhill our country has gone in last few decades.RE: TO ALL RIGHT AND WRONG:I would much rather suffer a child to
live in a good orphanage than an homosexual environment no matter how loving.Anything that can destroy ones sense of sexual idently, sexual
normalcy, will only hurt the child in the long run. Much like a cancer.When you start seeing grade schools carrying homsexual based
literature, it's quite clear they are forcing acceptance and tolerance for their
deviant lifestyle, and wabting children to embrace it as an alternative.And they say they care about the children.The lies people
tell themselves.And how insidious and evil if there is an agenda
and intention behind it.
You frequently comment on this post and I read with interest your thoughts. I
have long had a question for you:Do you not allow the possibility
that some people are just homosexually oriented, that their attractions are as
normal for them as yours are for you? Or do you sincerely maintain that
homosexuality is merely a "deviant" lifestyle choice?
Why can't you let each person decide where they want to end up in life and if it
makes them happy. You believe that homosexuals will have deviated far off
course and will be lost. That is your opinion and belief. Please do not force
it upon the rest of us by passing laws and amendments that limit our rights.
@2:45,You chose to use the words, "direct harm", when describing
practices that are unaccepable to society. What about "indirect harm"? Some
would say that "indirect harm" is similiar to "collateral damage". A person
killed as an indirect result of a bomb is just as dead. He may not get a medal
or a State Funeral, but he is still dead.A "fundamental" right is
not a "right" if it infringes, even indirectly, on others.
No, no, no KFC -It's you NEOCONS who like to apply the morality card
on controversial issues.And that's why you lost the cultural wars
re:Prayer in public schoolsA woman's reproductive rightsStem-cell researchGay civil unionsCensorship in art, media, and
literature.LOST 'EM ALL!When are you neocons going to
realize you cannot force your government to step in and intervene into its
citizens' private matters and force people into believing what you believe.This is America - Not Russia.
What is your destination? A simple exercise in math shows that if you traveled
around the world using a compass that was just 3-degrees off, that at the end of
your 24,000 mile trip, you would be off course by more than 1,250 miles, or
about the distance between Salt Lake City and Minneapolis! In other
words, if you want to achieve "happiness", you have to know the which road leads
to happiness.If you don't care about your destination, then travel
any road as you wander through life; but, if you do care about you destination,
make sure you choose a path that does not deviate, in the slightest amount, from
that path or you may find yourself lost, at the end of your journey.When I use the words, "sexual deviation" when describing homosexual activity,
I use those words carefully to describe the fact, that at the end of life's
journey, you will have deviated far off course and will be lost.
"We have thousands of laws in this country, and every single one is based on
morality."Yes, in the sense of prohibiting or regulating conduct
that results or potentially results in direct harm to others. Laws that are
based purely on religious views of morality and which are aimed at conduct that
causes no harm to others, on the other hand, are antiquated and are overturned
if they impinge on others fundamental rights.
"but homosexual practices are not. "Could you elaborate? What
practices are not protected?That is like saying, "heterosexuals
beliefs are protected but heterosexual practices are not." I don't
understand at all. There are so many different beliefs of both homosexuals and
heterosexuals and so many different practices for both. Could you
please explain what you are referring to?
@1:51,I am very much opposed to the lifestyle of criminals. I am
very much opposed to Hitler's lifestyle. I am very much opposed to Mr.
Clinton's sexual lifestyle.There is nothing wrong with opposing
practices that you feel are deviant. In fact, if you have integrity, you must
oppose practices that deviate from acceptable moral practices. The word
"deviant" means something that strays from the accepted norm.Why
would you feel that it is acceptable to embrace a deviant lifestyle?
Tell ya what neocons.Instead of whining about what liberals are
against -why not tell us what conservatives are for?The only thing I
see neocons 'conserving' are gigantic paychecks for their guru, Rush
Limbaugh.Talk about laughing all the way to the bank.
Most liberals are willing to tolerate conservative views. On this issue, you
remain free not to marry gay couples in your churches, not to attend or endorse
gay unions, and to teach your children what you wish about homosexuality. Those
who claim liberals want to do away with those rights of yours are blowing smoke.
What you are not permitted to do under our constitutional system,
however, is to hijack government to deny fundamental rights to a minority you
What legal rights are guaranteed by "beliefs"?Religious beliefs are
protected but religeous practices are not, i.e. poligamy.Homosexual
beliefs MAY also be protected, but homosexual practices are not. A
bankrobber's beliefs may be protect but his practices are not.Let's
not confuse the "Right" to believe to be the same as the "Right" to act.
"...opposed to the lifestyle ..."This is a perfect phrase for future
history books when discussing the weird and judgemental thinking process of our
twisted neoconservatives of today.Thank God they are a dying breed.
Mike, If you had read the whole post instead of stopping as soon as
you saw the word "hate," you would realize that he is on your side. Besides, the first amendment to the US Constitution states that homosexual
activists (citizens) can call anyone a hater if they want to. Darn that Freedom
of Speech! It doesn't help their cause, but sometimes that is exactly how they
feel and they express it. And sometimes we express our feelings and
it can easily be taken as "hate." Such words as "abomination," "unnatural,"
"selfish," "destroy civilization," etc. are not words that further discussions
and might bring out the "hate" word from those who are of a different
I have asked this question a hundred times, and never once received a
response.Why do liberals expect conservatives to be tolerant and accepting
of their viewpoints, but do not feel they need to show any tolerance toward
conservative views? And no, "we don't have to tolerate you because conservative
views are evil" remarks.Who are the real bigots? Bigoted towards
Mormons, Evangelicals, pro-life groups, and caucasians. You do not have to be a
minority to experience bigotry, and many times minority groups are the most
bigoted. By the way, who should determine what is and is not moral?
We have thousands of laws in this country, and every single one is based on
How about everyone stop forcing their lifestyle on others? We can start by
eliminating private clubs..
"To: CR Larsen 11:13" - There are some people who feel, two men or two women
living together in the same way a heterosexual couple does is not a healthy or
correct lifestyle. There are also others who feel the flamboyant and possibly
irreverent way some gays and lesbians openly portray themselves is
counter-productive.Now of course, there are many people who feel
this way of thinking is wrong, ignorant and bigoted. We can have our differences
of opinion, but when one side or the other attempts any kind of arm twisting of
their opponent, the only thing created is animosity. And it does go both ways.
"Neocons will find a new enemy 11:56" - I DO NOT consider gays and
lesbians the "enemy." My point was to simply show what appears to be a
contradiction between the words and actions of some gay rights supporters.
That's all!To perperlake 12:05 - What did I say that was hateful? I
didn't call anyone names. I wasn't making anything up in my letter. You may have a difference of opinion, but that does not mean everyone who
disagrees with you is somehow a hateful person.
This letter is right on and the incidents he cited are just the beginning. If
gay marriage becomes legal those who disagree with it will be forced to accept
many more situations with which they disagree and if they are uncomfortable they
will be dismissed as homophobes.
Unfortunately these examples are attributed by the author and others to all
gays, and then used to say that we--lumped together--go too far.Most
of us don't even attend the gay parade, much less have any interest in coercing
anyone else to attend. The fact that some people push things too far, however,
should not be an excuse to deny the rest of us the legal rights and protections
in our relationships that others enjoy in theirs. Most of us just want to live
quietly, honestly, and with the same rights and responsibilities as others.
@11:05,So, being opposed to the homosexual lifestyle is
automatically labeled "hate speech"?That is one of my main concerns
with homosexual activists. If you don't agree with them 100%, you are labeled
by any of a number of slanderous names. They may think that that is a clever
idea, but it just shows that their agenda has no foundation. The very idea that
they think that they can manipulate thought through the the use of their own
"intimidating" speech shows a lack of integrity on their part.Honest
and honorable people listen to each other and then comment on the points made -
without resorting to name calling. When the points under discussion have little
or no basis in fact, then honest and honorable people admit that their point is
weak and then either find points that are supported by facts or they acknowledge
that they chose the wrong points. Name calling isn't part of the process - in
Please tell me someone did not just use that tired old turn phrase "the silent
majority." Bringing out the political dinosaurs to try to make your arguments
seem fresh is probably not the best tactic.Clark I think you may have
misinterpreted what short cut" said and took quoted out of it well out of
context to try to make your point.
"I do believe a mother and father are best for children... I also believe it is
an un-necessary embarasement for children to have two fathers or two mothers.
Children and other people can be so cruel. Also I do believe an orphanage is
preferable to homosexual adoption."Thank you for answering. I
don't think that anyone questions whether or not a loving mother and a father
together is not the best situation for each child. The problem lies in that
there are many children who never have this situation, or that they have a
mother and a father and one or both of them is abusive or neglectful. Having a fat parent can be very embarassing for a child too, but no one thinks
of removing the child from their care if they are being loved and taken care of.
It is part of growing up for this child. So would having two fathers or two
mothers. What would you do with the children of homosexuals? Take
them away so that they do not have any further embarassment too?And
to condemn a child to an orphanage instead of being loved by gays is beyond my
comprehension. Please explain.
I don't understand the letter. I would be willing to bet that the fire fighters
in the parade are required to be there for all the parades thier city handles. I
suppose that if this were a civil rights parade for mexican immigrants that the
fire fighters were being forced to live like a mexican immigrant? come on. It
really must have been hard for those firefighters to be forced to live a gay
lifestyle for a day. oh wait they weren't forced to be gay they just had to be
there to get paid.
Quoted from worldnetdaily:"San Diego's fire chief, Tracy Jarman, is
an open lesbian who called the July 21 parade a "fun event" in which "all
employees are encouraged to participate."But the firefighters said,
unlike previous years, they were ordered into uniform to participate in the
parade in their fire truck, despite their repeated protests."
when I read letters like yours I realize there is no end to rationalizations
hateful people will come up with to keep it up.
After the General Election, the gay union thing will die down and the
Limbaughites will have to find another internal enemy for the continuation of
their bogus ideological civil war.
The fact that gay and lesbians do not have equal protection under the law is
only one example of how a few moralists are trying to force their own lifestyle
on the majority--both heterosexual and gay.
From what I understand, the firefighters were forced to be a "display" in the
parade. They were forced to promote something that heaven forbid they might not
agree with. They were not there to stand by in case of emergency. The chief was
100% in the wrong and deserved the lawsuit served by the firefighters.
No one is forcing you to be gay or even accept gays in your personal life. You
are forcing gays to live a life that has less status and privilege then
yourself. So who is forcing who?
Just so you know: I understand exactly where you are coming from. The San Diego
firefighters were asked to participate in a non-work related event for the
political benefit of their supervisor; they felt coerced and then sexually
harassed when they did so. Fair enough. If a devout religous person asked an
employee to ride on a float in a religiously themed parade and some people
refused, they would be considered to be another "Rosa Park" by the left; reverse
the situation and all of a sudden politically correct bullies label it
"intolerance" and "homophobia".This argument displays the disingenuous
nature of faux civil libertarians.BTW - I am homosexual - but it is
hypocrisy like this that make me reject the label "gay"(a term that goes beyond
sexuality and now seems to embody an entire lexacon of manipulative politics)
Keep up the good work.
Please explain to me what is a "gay lifestyle" and what are "gay beliefs?"Thanks
Let me say this first, I think a lot of people have great fun trying to make
homosexuals life harder. They want to have someone to hate. They have this us
vs them mentality. What they don't realise is that "but by the grace of god,
they could be in the same situation". Homosexuals do not choose to be that way,
I've read enough accounts to know that homosexuals have felt the way they do
since young childhood. I know I was attracted to girls in early grade school,
(I am male).That said, I do believe a mother and father are best for
children. Men and women both have something different to add when raising
children. Children need all the advantages they can get. I also believe it is an
un-necessary embarasement for children to have two fathers or two mothers.
Children and other people can be so cruel. Also I do believe an orphanage is
preferable to homosexual adoption.Homosexuals would be better off
not fighting the fight of adoption and being happy that many places have
domestic partnerships. Why is marriage so important? Its only a name
How about this compromise- Gays won't force their so-called "agenda" on anyone,
and religious zealots won't force their agendas on anyone. Sound good?
Thank you for your letter! I appreciate you speaking up for the silent majority.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Many people fail to recognize I
have the right to refuse to listen or associate with those who promote a
lifestyle I find morally wrong. I am respectful to those who choose that
lifestyle, but because I wont accept it, I am labled a bigot. Its funny that
those who cry foul are the ones committing the most fouls.
In my original letter, I did not explain my own feelings about same-sex
marriage, and I said nothing that was in anyway dishonest. I was simply
attempting to address two of the main concerns which opponents of same-sex
marriage have.1 - Are gay rights supporters attempting to force
their beliefs or lifestyle onto others?2 - Are gay rights supporters
attempting to force churches to accept their lifestyle?My letter was
not an attempt to attack anyone, nor was it an attempt to put down gays or
I am very secure with my heterosexuality.That is why I seldom give this
issue much thought as it does not affect my life one way or the other.I have always wondered why there are those who seem to be having some problems
NOT obsessing about it.Maybe it will come out under professional
Since I'm the original letter writer, let me attempt to answer some of the
posted comments.The four San Diego firefighters were told they had
to march in the parade, in their firefighters uniform. As 'Short cut' correctly
pointed out, "The basis of their complaint is that they felt that to refuse may
result in disciplinary action including not getting future promotions." To Sid43, Of course they were - 1:47, Gus Talwynd, Agki and Pathetic
Minds. To suggest that somehow, forcing straight firefighters to march in a gay
pride parade, is the EXACT SAME as requiring them to put out a fire is a
RIDICULOUS comparison. Putting out a fire, ANY FIRE, is part of a fireman's job.
Marching in a gay pride parade is not. Would you not object if the
four were forced to march in a KKK rally?In mentioning the San
Fransisco Board's vote, there was one question the DN left out of my original
letter. "What would stop the city from, sometime in the future,
firing all Catholics?"I fail to see why my letter is considered
pathetic or whiny. I also fail to see how my letter is hypocritical.
"I think its wrong for homosexuals to adopt children." why?
You say there "are plenty of heterosexual couples who want to adopt and can't."
that is simply not true. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who want to
adopt healthy white babies, but there are millions of older children, some with
health needs in foster care that these people dont seem to want. This is in no
way an endorsement of your heterosexuals first statement.
I don't understand how homosexual marriage is a threat to my hetrosexual
marriage. The logic used by people against is hollow.Nor do I
understand why homosexuals insist on getting marriage instead of domestic
partnership, what difference does the name make.I think its wrong
for homosexuals to adopt children. Especially when there are plenty of
hetrosexual couples who want to adopt and can't.
To Gus and this entire section of commments: Your comments prove that you would
force your positions on others through the means of the government. And you
want the rest of of to think this is not something that people are going to be
forced to support? Guess it will all have to wind it's way through the courts.
Depends on who is sitting on that court. And by the way, Gus, I did quit a job
with a national brokerage house over business ethics. It cost me tremendously
and my family. Some people will never knuckle under.
Its only OK to force "lifesytyle" on others if its considered moral.
The San Diego firefighters were ordered to ride in the parade by the fire chief.
They were sexually harassed by attendees at the parade. As for the
person who said they could quit, how many of us could just quit a job? I know I
Once again Clark and his ilk want to take short cuts through the truth, the
firefighters where not threatened by their own admission. The basiss of their
complaint is that they felt that to refuse may result in disciplinary action
including not getting future promotions. They have filed a sexual harassment
lawsuit, which the fire chief of San Francisco (a lesbian) supports. She has
publicly stated there is no room within the fire department for the type of
sexual harassment being alleged. The Catholic Church has a contract to
provide social services for the city of San Francisco and the statement by the
Vatican called into question weather they would continue to meet the
requirements of that contract, the church and the city where able to work it out
so that the services could continue. The truth is Clark that these things
will likely come-up sometimes and will need to be addressed its all part of the
Clark, Another whiny, sexually insecure Utah man using false
arguments to justify his prejudice. What a surprise.To begin with,
the gay community didn't force or ask those firemen to do anything. Their
superiors gave them an assignment and they refused. They are civil servants,
and as such, cannot pick and choose whom they will or will not protect. They
were required to go because of public policy and civc need, and refused. They
are suing the Fire Department, not the Gay Community.Passing a
resolution criticizing an organization's position is certainly appropriate for
city government, especially if that organization is a tax-exempt entity trying
to codify it's religious beliefs into law. If you're trying to equate passing a
non-binding resolution to amending the constitution to deny rights for a single
specific group, its not even in the same league. And I'm still
confused, though. Can you specify what, in the "Gay Lifestyle", you've been
forced to participate in? What
Your concern about someone's honesty should start with the person in the mirror.
So how was any one FORCED into the lifestyle of another? Requiring city units
to attend a city sponsored function is pretty standard and a part of the
employment contract, isn't it?
Freedom comes both sides of a debate being fair and equal in their treatment of
In Mass after they leagelised same sex marrige, parents who didn't like lessons
or stories of same sex partners read to their kids by teachers, where band from
coming on to school property after complaing to principles and school boards.
Parents no longer have any say in what their kids are taught. Saying it won't
hurt society is a lie.
It should not be policy to force an individual to attend an event outside their
normal work to which they have an reasonable objection. Requiring a civil
employee to attend a Gay Pride Parade or a partisan event on their off-hours
is inappropriate. Anyone who objects should be given the opportunity to not
participate. However, in the performance of their duties, the person only has
the recourse to quit (like an individual working for a pharmaceutical company
that makes birth control devices to which they morally object.)However, to say that this is an attempt to force a lifestyle on an individual
is completely false. The criticism of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as
a conflict with the separation of church and state is completely unfounded since
there is no attempt to bring the two together. There is nothing to prevent the
Catholic Church from being against gay adoption. Neither is there a
contradiction for the for the Board of Supervisors to take a position opposite
to that of the Church. Would the writer say the same if local government
objected to a group like the FLDS from their practice of marriage to underage
girls to old men?
forced to attend.Their job is to provide services to the
citizens.That's part of the job when you sign up.I
provide services for all citizens, even if I don't always agree with them.What would happen in Utah if non-LDS firefighters and police officers
refused to respond to calls at LDS Conference? Or said they didn't want to work
the Days Of 47 Parade because of it's religious basis? As a public
servant you serve everyone, not just the groups you agree with.
Seems a lot was left out of this letter.Were the fire fighters
required to participate in the gay parade or just be there on stand by in case
of a fire? Can't imagine they were there as participants. Maybe I am wrong,
but it makes me wonder if they were called to house fire where my 68 year old
aunt lives with her gay partner of 30 plus years if they would do their job???
Do I need to start worrying now?And, who is the San Francisco
Superivors Board? Government? Church? Gay activist group? Catholic
monitoring agency??? Be more specific.This letter is a joke. I
can't believe the DN editor can't come up with better letters.