Don't force lifestyle on others

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RangerGordon
    July 31, 2008 5:18 p.m.

    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 to participate.

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 5:31 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008 4:48 p.m.

    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.


    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.

  • To Mike
    July 30, 2008 4:30 p.m.

    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?

  • to: Mike Richards | 3:27 p.m.
    July 30, 2008 4:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 4:13 p.m.


    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.

  • when will neocons learn?
    July 30, 2008 3:59 p.m.

    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 schools
    A woman's reproductive rights
    Stem-cell research
    Gay civil unions
    Censorship in art, media, and literature.


    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • To KVC
    July 30, 2008 2:45 p.m.

    "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.

  • TO:Mike Richards | 2:06 p.m
    July 30, 2008 2:37 p.m.

    "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?

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 2:36 p.m.


    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?

  • just what are you for?
    July 30, 2008 2:32 p.m.

    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.

  • To KVC
    July 30, 2008 2:28 p.m.

    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 disapprove of.

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 2:06 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008 1:51 p.m.

    "...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.

  • to: Mike Richards | 12:29 p.m
    July 30, 2008 1:40 p.m.


    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 opinion.

  • KVC
    July 30, 2008 1:11 p.m.

    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 morality.

  • compromise
    July 30, 2008 1:08 p.m.

    How about everyone stop forcing their lifestyle on others? We can start by eliminating private clubs..

  • Clark Roger Larsen
    July 30, 2008 1:07 p.m.

    "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.

  • Mc
    July 30, 2008 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • BYDC
    July 30, 2008 12:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 12:29 p.m.


    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 adult conversation.

  • really?
    July 30, 2008 12:28 p.m.

    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.

  • TO:All are wrong and right
    July 30, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    "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.

  • peperlake
    July 30, 2008 12:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 30, 2008 12:03 p.m.

    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."

  • peperlake
    July 30, 2008 12:05 p.m.

    when I read letters like yours I realize there is no end to rationalizations hateful people will come up with to keep it up.

  • neocons will find a new enemy
    July 30, 2008 11:56 a.m.

    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.

  • RangerGordon
    July 30, 2008 11:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008 11:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Chris Plummer
    July 30, 2008 11:24 a.m.

    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?

  • I support you Clark
    July 30, 2008 11:21 a.m.

    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.

  • To: CR Larsen
    July 30, 2008 11:13 a.m.

    Please explain to me what is a "gay lifestyle" and what are "gay beliefs?"


  • re TO:All are wrong and right
    July 30, 2008 11:05 a.m.

    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 difference.

  • GeeBee
    July 30, 2008 10:52 a.m.

    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?

  • To Clark Roger Larsen
    July 30, 2008 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Clark Roger Larsen (cont.)
    July 30, 2008 10:19 a.m.

    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 lesbians.

  • Anonymous
    July 30, 2008 10:06 a.m.

    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 counseling.

  • Clark Roger Larsen
    July 30, 2008 9:57 a.m.

    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.

  • TO:All are wrong and right
    July 30, 2008 9:26 a.m.

    "I think its wrong for homosexuals to adopt children."


  • wrongandright is wrong
    July 30, 2008 8:52 a.m.

    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.

  • All are wrong and right
    July 30, 2008 8:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Lionheart
    July 30, 2008 8:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Raul
    July 30, 2008 8:20 a.m.

    Its only OK to force "lifesytyle" on others if its considered moral.

  • re: Pathetic Minds & Short cut
    July 30, 2008 7:55 a.m.

    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 couldn't.

  • Short cut
    July 30, 2008 6:57 a.m.

    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 growing process.

  • Pathetic Minds
    July 30, 2008 6:47 a.m.


    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 hypocrisy!

  • Robert Oh
    July 30, 2008 5:28 a.m.

    Your concern about someone's honesty should start with the person in the mirror.

  • Agki
    July 30, 2008 4:52 a.m.

    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
    July 30, 2008 4:22 a.m.

    Freedom comes both sides of a debate being fair and equal in their treatment of the other.

  • John C.
    July 30, 2008 2:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Gus Talwynd
    July 30, 2008 1:47 a.m.

    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?

  • Of course they were
    July 30, 2008 1:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Sid143
    July 30, 2008 1:19 a.m.

    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.