Should the gay marriage movement become more tolerant of other viewpoints?
For years, the gay rights movement was about “live-and-let-live” tolerance. But the Miss USA flap showed just how much ill-will has built up among activists, and how much the need for tolerance has shifted.
Even though the majority of Americans simply want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and themselves have no ill will in the process, gay marriage activists have been successful at redefining disagreement as hateful bigotry. Ironically, this has given those crying “tolerance” the permission to treat others with thinly veiled (or outright) derision and loathing.
This bizarre reality is only possible because of how the mainstream entertainment and news media present the issue. Editors and producers jump on traditionalists, yet don’t even notice slanted pro-gay reporting. For example, in an April 23 Associated Press report about gay marriage in Connecticut: “A decade-long battle for marriage equality in Connecticut ended when the General Assembly voted to update the state’s marriage laws.” (Just imagine the furor if this equally biased opening had been used: “A decade long battle to preserve traditional marriage was lost today…”)
After the Miss USA pageant, this anti-traditional bigotry was shockingly on display. Following Miss California Carrie Prejean’s respectful answer that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman, gay activist judge Perez Hilton began such vile persecution that America gasped. On his Weblog, he posted her picture and drew a male phallus in her mouth. He apparently never saw the hypocrisy of telling the Today Show that he attacked her because she wasn’t “saying things that will make everyone feel welcome.”
Gay activists had a great opportunity at that moment. But instead of loudly condemning Hilton’s hatefulness, all too many defended him or stayed silent. The blogging-level criticism raised by a few never reached those appalled by Hilton’s actions.
Americans have always managed vehemently differing opinions via our belief in respect-based free speech: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” To that, I might add, “And your difference of opinion doesn’t mean you are evil.” I believe most Americans – gay or straight – much prefer that civil approach and urge activists on both sides to embrace it.
Should the gay marriage movement become more tolerant of other viewpoints?
I’m afraid that I join gay rights activists in being confused as to just what “great opportunity” they forgo in not publicly defending Miss California against Miss USA judge Perez Hilton.
Ah, what the heck—I’m feeling tolerant, so let me state this unequivocally: Carrie Prejean has every right to voice her views on both gay marriage and, in her words, “opposite marriage.” Let’s be clear that although this didn’t cost her the crown (Miss North Carolina was already ahead in two competitions) Prejean was subject to some awfully crass treatment by Perez Hilton in the days following this low-rent rip-off of the Miss America pageant.
Of course, anyone familiar with “The Queen of All Media” expected the ensuing drama.
Mario Lavandeira, a.k.a. Perez Hilton, is an outrageous blogger who uses photos, captions and drawings to savagely rip on celebrities of all persuasions on a daily basis.
Being mean, name calling? Honey, that’s his bread and butter, and the Miss USA folks were perfectly aware of that when they gave him the job. Once more, pageant co-owner Donald Trump pulled America’s strings and we did our little marionette dance. I got to hand it to that guy.
Most serious activists for any cause are not going to lose their hard-won credibility by commenting on a made-for-TV blowup generated by a publicity-seeking provocateur like Lavandeira. They’re also well aware that few Americans opposed to their viewpoint will be won over by any outlandish rant, agreeing that civil discourse does get you farther.
On the other hand, sometimes an issue can stir within you such a passionate response that passionate words are required. “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals” the Reverend Jerry Falwell once declared, “It is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
Cruel, alienating language usually backfires; Falwell’s horrific bigotry is now seen as such by the majority of Americans, whether or not they approve of gay marriage. We’ve come a long way, and tolerance of each other’s viewpoints is a huge part of that. So I too encourage folks in the gay marriage movement to stay respectful and resist name-calling. Yet know this: they’ll never stop fighting for all citizens to have equal protection and status under the law. Tolerate that, America.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
538 comments Add your comment
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
1:06 pm
Firstest!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
1:11 pm
BOSD! Barry Gibb again!
There’s a light, a certain kind of light,
that never shone on me.
I want my life to be, to live with you, live with you.
There’s a way, each and every day,
to do each and every little thing,
but what good does it bring,
if I ain’t got you, ain’t got you.
You don’t know what it’s like…
To love somebody, to love somebody, the way I love you.
[ Gibb Barry Lyrics are found on http://www.songlyrics.com ]
In my brain, I see your face again,
You know I pray for you every night.
You ain’t got to be so blind, and I’m sad, oh so sad.
I’m a man, can’t you see what I am,
you know I live and I breathe for you,
but what good does breathing do,
if I ain’t got you, ain’t got you.
You don’t know what it’s like…
To love somebody, to love somebody, the way I love you.
(repeat chorus)
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
1:11 pm
Homo’s should be more tolerant, duh!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
1:34 pm
Biden is a loose cannon! Typical of this regime!
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
1:37 pm
Barry’s administation is like communism, you can’t fix it!
John K.
May 1st, 2009
1:44 pm
Not if the viewpoint is to continue to deny us rights we are entitled to! This is not the stimulus bill; these are our lives.
Tony
May 1st, 2009
1:49 pm
Finally! Just like the black civil rights movement needed to be more tolerant of the views of the KKK, we who have adopted the homosexural lifestyle must be more tolerant of their present-day counterparts, the fundies (Mormons included).
Mara
May 1st, 2009
1:51 pm
(sigh)
No more than the civil rights movement should have tolerated other viewpoints. Or women’s sufferage movement should have tolerated other viewpoints.
Nor should any other group whose goal is to secure the same legal protections and rights for themselves as their fellow citizens enjoy. If the government gives me benefits for marrying the one I love, they should give Big Gay Al the same benefits for marrying the one HE loves. That’s equality.
Christopher Shelton
May 1st, 2009
1:54 pm
It isn’t about tolerance. Those who would refuse another human being’s right to a family do not deserve tolerance. I don’t ask them to be tolerant of homosexuals, I just ask them to follow the law; and I ask the lawmakers to clarify the law to make clear that homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us. In that light, I don’t need to be tolerant of them. As long as I don’t interfere with *their* legal rights, then there’s no hypocrisy in asking them to treat others with the same respect.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
1:55 pm
I don’t feel bad for Miss California. Pageants have a Q+A round, and she offended a lot of people with her answer. She has every right to defend traditional marriage, but Perez has a right to attack her for it. Many people (including myself), think beauty pageants are a joke and stand for everything wrong with our patriarchal society. Thus, I couldn’t care less what some bimbo thinks about gay marriage.
Gay people are sick of the discrimination. Yes, maybe they are being extreme, but I think pro-traditional marriage advocates should ask themselves why homosexuals react in such a visceral way to intolerance. To think that in a society (that has long villanized gays) that gays are the intolerant ones here is, well, absurd.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
2:06 pm
Robert why are “Gay” people sick of discrimination? Gay is a word to describe happy, or jolly. Are Happy people discriminated against?
Chris Broe
May 1st, 2009
2:08 pm
I’d like to read a woman to woman blog about under-aged gay pirates who take cellphone photos of their spouse’s googoos and terrorize cyberspace. Now that’s wrong! I need the perspective that only the right and left can give.
frog
May 1st, 2009
2:22 pm
when non-breeders cease using the term “marriage” in their quest for extra rights, they may gain some tolerance for their view.
See?
May 1st, 2009
2:26 pm
Those who don’t want gays to marry just want to punish people for being gay. And being gay is NOT a choice and NOT a lifestyle. If all gays lived exactly the same then maybe you could call it a lifestyle… but there are gays in every culture, every race and every religion on the planet and it has been that way since the dawn of man. This is just about hate-filled conservatives looking for an easy punching bag.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
2:26 pm
Frog! You go!
Edward
May 1st, 2009
2:26 pm
It is quite amusing to hear the oppressors whine that those they have oppressed for millenia are being “intolerant” of the oppression. Oh poor babies!
Matthew
May 1st, 2009
2:27 pm
I have to agree that tolerance is important in this discussion. I am a marriage equality supporter, but for me it comes down to the golden rule. If I want others to be respective of my viewpoint, I must be willing to be respectful of their’s.
It doesn’t matter if the gay marriage opponents say horrible things or belittle those on the other side, what matters is how I respond to that. I will fight the good fight whenever I can, but if the story of Martin Luther King Jr. taught me anything, it is that you can fight for you rights without sinking to the opposition’s level.
Kayla
May 1st, 2009
2:27 pm
Miss Prejean and her supporters seem to have totally mistaken what free speech means. Miss Prejean can voice her opinion and others have the right to criticize her. Now I believe that Perez Hilton showed little class by screaming those words into the camera the way he did, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Ms. Prejean nor anyone else should be immune from negative reactions to their comments and opinions. Asking gay people to be tolerant of people who would like to keep them from enjoying fulll equality is like asking a black person to tolerate racists. Racist certainly have a right to exists but I, as a young black woman, have the right to react negatively to their disgusting opinions. The same would apply for gay people and homophobes!!
Aine
May 1st, 2009
2:27 pm
Who cares if Carrie Prejean gets called a bitch???
She is a blond bimbo beauty pageant girl who promotes all the stereotypes of women that have kept us down. She has no brains, just listen to her reason for her position,”How I was raised…” Did you watch the interview on FOX with Susteren? This bimbo didn’t even understand what the issues on domestic partnerships and gay adoption were. Now, Perez Hilton is a bottom feeding gossip columnist, but at least his idiocy only involves a sleazy website. The idiocy of Prejean is combined with her inherited bigotry. She want’s to take away LGBT persons rights because they violate what her daddy said is in the bible. WTF!?!
Why should we have any tolerance for someone who wants bigotry in the law books because of her religion?
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
2:28 pm
See? What is this about happiness discrimination? I think it foolish to think anyone is being discriminated against for being happy! ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT QUEER? Call a spade a spade Chiefy!
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:29 pm
Hey you guys are exactly right. And since we are declaring the right of people to be completely intolerant “because it is your life”, I’m sure you all feel the same about the anti-abortion movement.
New rule. I’f you really believe it is important, no tolerance is necessary.
WTFER
May 1st, 2009
2:29 pm
You want tolerance?! Then quit attacking me because i just happen to be gay… quit passing laws to keep me down… and quit electing Congresspeople who do things like call Mathew Shepherds vicious murder a “hoax.” You do that and maybe then I might be a bit more tolerant of your out-of-date hate.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:30 pm
Aino
How do you feel about the rights of unborn children, while we are discussing rights, and all.
See?
May 1st, 2009
2:31 pm
Gandalf… btw, Ian McKellen –the actor who played Gandalf in The Lord of The Rings was GAY! So are you gay too? And by “gay” I mean QUEER…
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:31 pm
Katla
–Asking gay people to be tolerant of people who would like to keep them from enjoying fulll equality is like asking a black person to tolerate racists.–
Or asking a person who believes in the rights of the unborn to tolerate abortions. Right on sister!!!
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:35 pm
robert
–I don’t feel bad for Miss California. Pageants have a Q+A round, and she offended a lot of people with her answer. She has every right to defend traditional marriage, but Perez has a right to attack her for it.–
Perez was a paid employee of the Miss USA pageant. So are you actually saying that a paid judge of a beauty pageant has the right to verbally attack a contestant? Or are you saying that they have a right to verbally attack a contestant if that contestant disagrees with you?
Read THE BIBLE
May 1st, 2009
2:36 pm
man and woman, not same sex.
YOU ALL BETTER BE CAREFUL HOW YOU MISS USE GOD HOLY WORD.
SAY WHAT YOU WANT,YOU CAN MAKE GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL,
BUT GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:38 pm
WTFER
So how does Obama feel about Gay marriage? Did you vote for him?
Ironman Carmichael
May 1st, 2009
2:40 pm
Should people of color accept the KKK and other white supremacy groups? Was the late Rosa Parks wrong for being “intolerant” of the opinion of the white who felt she belonged in the back of the bus. Oh, yes, you caught me. I’m intolerant of intolerance. I’m a bigot bigot. Want to make something of it?
And for the record, nobody took free speech rights away from Carry Prejudice–oh, sorry: Carrie Prejean. How much you want to bet she’ll write a book?
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:41 pm
Christopher Shelton
–Those who would refuse another human being’s right to a family do not deserve tolerance.–
How do you feel about those who support abortions? Do people who respect the life of an unborn child have the right to be intolerant? Or is this just about issues that you agree with?
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
2:42 pm
Enter your comments here
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:43 pm
Ironman Carmichael
–Should people of color accept the KKK and other white supremacy groups?–
Shouild people who respect the rights of the unborn be tolerant toward people who approve of sucking the brains out of a living baby? Sounds like tolerance is becoming old hat.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
2:45 pm
See? Are you somehow suggesting that he is less an actor because of his sexuality? How funny! Why do you even care about my sexuality? I just don’t think the Homosexual community owns the word gay! I am Gay, and I am proud of it! (But I am no batsmoker!)
John
May 1st, 2009
2:46 pm
Seems to me that the church has been in the marriage business a lot longer than the state has. Those who seek to change the definition of marriage at this late date need to examine their own motivations. Seek out a civil union that gives the same legal rights as marriage does. Trying to take a well-established label – marriage – that already means something very specific to a lot of people who are passionate about their beliefs is simply not a good idea. And whereas I may have been ambivalent 2 weeks ago, “activists” like Perez Hilton who seek to publicly shame people who have strong religious views have solidified me wholeheartedly against this movement. Heck, I might even fight civil unions at this point. If Perez Hilton wants to pick a fight, I’ll help give him one.
Peadawg
May 1st, 2009
2:48 pm
I’m tolerant(as in get along with) of gays. I’ve worked w/ gays in school and in the real world, no problem.
But, that doesn’t mean I have to agree w/ their lifestyle. Personally, I think being gay is wrong and is a choice. Hate me if you want, doesn’t really bother me. You’re entitled to your opinion and i’m entitled to mine.
On the matter of same rights as others…wasn’t there recently a “gay day” where you call in sick at work if you’re gay?? That sounds like special right to me people.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
May 1st, 2009
2:50 pm
I wish every day was gay day! Everyone would be so happy! WE could have a batsmokers day as well!
Peadawg
May 1st, 2009
2:50 pm
“Seek out a civil union that gives the same legal rights as marriage does. Trying to take a well-established label – marriage – that already means something very specific to a lot of people who are passionate about their beliefs is simply not a good idea.”
AMEN John!!! AMEN!!!
MWGT1990
May 1st, 2009
2:51 pm
Please help me understand again, why gays need special rights? Are you feeling persecuted? You’ve chosen a certain lifestyle, and you want people to treat you special. I think insistence of being treated a special way cause more trouble. It goes with the territory of many lifestyle choices – good or bad. Help me out here. Where will gays stop?
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:53 pm
In order to make gay marriage legal, a large part of the voting population will need to change their viewpoints.
So does anyone have an opinion on how a screaming. hysterical he-b!tch has affected that struggle? Does anyone like the fact that a very large part of the population saw the argument for gay marriage being presented as an out of control, stereotypical, in your face person?
Is this the argument for gay marriage that you would like to see presented to the voting public?
Nimrod
May 1st, 2009
2:54 pm
Homosexuals should stop comparing their plight to that of those in the Civil Rights Era. Although both are struggles, they are inherently different. Being against your lifestyle does not mean that one is homophobic, it simply means that one does not accept it. When Homosexuals and Lesbians begin to procreate without outside intervention, I will wholeheartedly accept that their lifestyle is equal to that of Heterosexuals and natural. (YES NATURAL) Any form of life that does not lead to the continuation of its specie is doomed to an eventual death. Ergo, man + man, woman + woman =death. Disprove my point, and I will quickly join your fight.
American Woman
May 1st, 2009
2:56 pm
The “gay marriage movement” is not about viewpoints. It’s about equality under the law — equality that currently DOES NOT EXIST in the United States of America. Preventing gay citizen couples from obtaining the same piece of paper from the county courthouse that straight citizen couples can obtain is discrimination. Period. That some of you have the gall to ask for “tolerance” in your ongoing vocal support for this discrimination is almost laughable, except that it’s not funny.
Than ANY of you give a rat’s fuzzy about Miss Cali’s “I would have won if not for the hateful defenders of gay rights” is truly sad.
Vick
May 1st, 2009
2:58 pm
MWGT1990 — your ignorance is astounding. Do you seriously believe homosexuality is a “choice”? How would you know that? Did you chose NOT to be gay? Did you make a conscious decision one day to be a straight person? And as far as “special rights,” it is EQUAL rights that gay Americans are fighting for. My question is where will hate-filled, mean-spirited people like you stop? When will you stop bashing people because you hate them? I hope to God you never have children… I can’t imagine what nasty, awful, evil people someone like you would bring into this world. You are on the wrong side of history.. so crawl back under your rock you small-minded troglodyte.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
2:58 pm
AW
So because we care about someone that you disagree with is truly sad.
Actually, your statement is truly sad.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
2:59 pm
The Other Jack wrote: “Perez was a paid employee of the Miss USA pageant. So are you actually saying that a paid judge of a beauty pageant has the right to verbally attack a contestant? Or are you saying that they have a right to verbally attack a contestant if that contestant disagrees with you?”
Yes, I do think Perez should be able to criticize the contestant after the pageant. I don’t think he was an employee of Miss USA…I doubt he even got paid for being a judge (it’s free publicity for his blog). If the situation were reversed, I believe a conservative should be able to criticize a pro-gay marriage answer. It’s simple freedom of speech.
On a side note, regardless of your opinion on gay marriage, the answer was poorly articulated. Saying that you believe something simply because you were raised a certain was does not justify prejudice. My Grandma taught my mom to be racist, but as she became an adult she realized that those beliefs were antiquated and immoral. We should progress as a society, and healthy debate about the issue is reasonable.
To Read THE BIBLE: I suggest that you read the bible yourself. The only part of the bible against homosexuality is in Leviticus, which also states that eating shrimp is an abomination, that people who work on Sundays are wicked, and women should be sent away when they get their period. We should also kill people with long hair and girls who have sex prior to marriage. The bible is full of things that people don’t follow today, so why is one verse in the Old Testament so important to you? Why not follow all the laws of the bible?
To Gandolf (the white?): gay is a term used to determine homosexuality. A word is allowed to have two meanings, and dictionaries clearly define both denotations of the word “gay.” Queer, homsexual, and gay are all perfectly acceptable (and ubiquitous) terms suitable for this debate.
GFTGOI
May 1st, 2009
3:00 pm
Nimrod said:
“Any form of life that does not lead to the continuation of its specie is doomed to an eventual death. Ergo, man + man, woman + woman =death.”
Straight people give birth to homosexuals every single day. They have since the beginning of time. Only when you all would quit having babies, gay people would go away.
matt
May 1st, 2009
3:00 pm
Militant Gays call disagreement based on a persons views “Hate”. Give me a break! Militant gays are just as bigoted and viscous as any other extremist group. They will hire, fire, and hold back employees that do not agree with them. They will viscously attack ANYONE who disagrees with them. I saw a youtube video with gay activists roughing up an old lady that was counter protesting at one of thier pride rallies. Heavan forbid ANYONE disagree with them. What happened to free speech? Oh I guess the only rights that gays are interested in is their own! And do not compare the civil rights movement to the gay right movement. They are not camparable. Yes gays have been abused and a few (relatively speaking) have been killed. A civil society should not tolerate violence against gays for ONE second! Gays have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex like everyone else. Right? Thier legal rights such as hospital visits and leaving thier belongings to thier mate in case of death are protected under civil unions. Government encourages and discourages activities all the time. People (breeders) add citizens to the civilization. Therefore they enjoy some perks like the child tax credit. What’s new? This gay militancy is all about militant gays demanding that people accept thier life style as natural, good and wonderful. Not everyone agrees with that? That does not make people evil because they have that opinion. A little more tolerance would be nice my gay friends.
Rollo Tomasi
May 1st, 2009
3:00 pm
So those who support gay marriage should tolerate those who are aginast it and vice-versa. Ok then, if we are really talking about tolerance then let us really talk about tolerance. Therefore, those of us who are law abiding should more be tolerant of those who break the laws. Those who are victims of rape should just tolerate that behavior. And if someone tries to kill you, just tolreate it. It someone steals from you, tolerate it. If someone keeps you from your civil liberties, tolerate it. If someone burns down your church, you should just tolerate it. Hmmmm, tolerance makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? Or maybe, just maybe, the world is not this way becuase someone, somewhere decided enough was enough and became intolerant. Do you think that intolerance perhaps motivates change? Hmmmmmmm.
Matt2
May 1st, 2009
3:03 pm
I am one gay American who is sick and tired of being tolerant… I am ready to go to war for my rights… wanna tangle with a p’od gay guy?! LET’S GO!!!
EW
May 1st, 2009
3:05 pm
Statement 1: I’m gay and being denied the right to a family.
Statement 2: I’m a polygamist and being denied the right to a family.
Statement 3: I’m a pedophile and being denied the right to a family.
All three are equal in validity but only one is currently being fought for. To redefine marriage would be opening a pandora’s box that most of America does not want opened. If a state opens it up to a vote and the vote passes then so be it, we’re a republic and that’s how we are set up. However on a national level this should be totally left alone.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:06 pm
Robert
You are honest about it. I happen to disagree on either side of the marriage issue. Whether or not he was paid, he represented the pageant by being a judge.
I guess the days of decorum is over. Say what you want.
But my question to you is how do you think this worked out? The anti-marriage folks had a beautiful young woman who showed quite a bit of courage by saying what she believed and she was slaughtered for it. So she is practically an overnight sensation.
The little twit (gay or not) that was screaming into the camera, calling Miss California a stupid b!tch was the representative for the gay marriage movement.
How do you think that worked out?
American Woman
May 1st, 2009
3:06 pm
TOJ, no actually, I’m gonna stand by my statement. (a) The pageant is lame, hence Trumps use of publicity stunts to garner media attention for something most people care nothing about. (b) Miss North Carolina WON the pageant. Do you know her name? No, because everybody’s sqawking about the sore loser runner-up screeching discrimination. Who’s picture is in all the news? The sore loser’s. It’s almost as bad as the Tiger Woods woody the sports media has while practically ignoring the actual winner of the Masters.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:09 pm
Rollo Tomasi
–Do you think that intolerance perhaps motivates change? Hmmmmmmm.–
So are you saying that if enough pro-lifers blow up enough abortion clinics that it will end Roe v Wade?
Rollo Tomasi
May 1st, 2009
3:14 pm
If you do not like gay marraige becuase you believe that it is wrong and two men or two women should not marry, then fine. I disagree, but at least I respect your belief. But, DO NOT try to justify it with arguments from the Bible(or any other religion text), not being able to have childern, or any other argument that I can tear apart and destroy. Just accept the fact that you are who you are and STOP trying to justify your belief to make yourself feel better about that belief.
Archie
May 1st, 2009
3:15 pm
On this topic I agree with Shanti. I mean please there will always be people that believe in traditional marriage and that’s all Miss California said. I support gay marriage but that does not mean I have a problem with what Miss California said. All people need to respect other folks views especially when they express said views without malice
N'dygo
May 1st, 2009
3:15 pm
Yes, it seems to me if you don’t agree with homosexual lifestyle as a hetrosexual, you are labeled a homophob. Not true, perfect example is Perez Hilton going on his website and bashing the runner up of the Miss USA pagaent because she beleived a marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t agree with their lifestyle and have my views on it but I say to each is own. They, homo-sexuals, don’t seem to do the same. “Hypocrites!
Rollo Tomasi
May 1st, 2009
3:15 pm
To “The other Jack”. Thank you for proving my point.
Wow
May 1st, 2009
3:18 pm
Yep, good talk.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:22 pm
AW
That’s my point, Kim. I have no problem with gay marriage as I have said before. I have a huge problem with hypocrisy. it’s OK not to be tolerant of people that disagree with liberal issues, but NEVER is the same true for conservative issues.
And as I have said, how do you think that turned out? You are exactly right in that the Barbie Doll is now a star and the person representing gay marriage is a hysterical little twit that screams obscenities into the camera. People have posted here today that they support his actions.
This is never going to be legal while people like Perez hilton represents te gay marriage movement.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
3:23 pm
The Other Jack: You raise incredibly valid points. I don’t think either side benefits in this situation. I am pro-gay rights, but I certainly don’t want Perez Hilton representing my side. He is nothing like me, and he stooped to a much lower level when he attacked her on his web-video. However, he should have a right to say what he wants. I don’t agree with her using mysoginistic language like “bitch”, etc…but it is is freedom of speech. Also, if Miss USA pageant execs choose to not ask him to judge again, that is perfectly within their rights.
Alternatively, Miss California isn’t exactly the best advocate for traditional marriage advocates. Have any of you watched a Miss USA pageant before? These girls are IDIOTS (even the liberal ones). It doesn’t speak well for society to judge a female based on her looks (with a 30 second answer to a question about politics). Would a brilliant female who is overweight or in a wheel-chair ever have a chance at this pageant? I doubt it.
Again, I don’t think Perez represents the gay rights movement or gay people in general. You can’t group ALL black people with O.J. Simpson (or Martin Luther King). They are individuals perfectly capable of being intolerant, just as some members of the straight community poorly represent themselves in the media.
I am kind of baffled why people consider Miss California to be courageous. She basically said something that the rest of the U.S. agrees with, and she fared well in the pageant by getting first runner-up. Wouldn’t it be courageous to go against the grain in this case?
Chris
May 1st, 2009
3:23 pm
Here’s my view point SHUT THE HELL UP and live your own life. No one who is intolerant to others deserves any respect whatsoever. What if Miss USA believed that blacks should not hold public office? Would that view be OK? Do you think other people would sit back and be “tolerant” to that? HAHAHAHA!!!
It would be a whole different story if gays were allowed to marry and someone wants to “disagree with them being born that way”(if that makes any logic whatsoever). That’s “fair” I GUESS. The same way I disagree with Christianity, the bible is nothing but a plagiarized book taken straight out of Paganism. That’s a fact. I also believe blind faith is a destructive force to humanity. But do I think that all churches should be taken down and all people should not be allowed to believe in the boogie monster if they want to? Of course not!! I’m not going to get into the personal lives of other people and I know very well that not all people that believe in a religious doctrine are so fanatical to shove it down people’s throats like Osama Bin Laden and Pat Robertson.
The overwhelming majority of “anti-gay” organizations are funded by religious groups(I don’t know of a single one that’s not but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt). The fact is that Christian Militants are the extreme radicals on the losing side of this debate and as long as gay marriage is illegal anywhere in the United States we are going to viciously CRUSH your ignorant intolerance anyway possible. I’m sure people tried to defend slavery back in the day because it was sanctioned by the Old Testament and the “anti-gay” people are on that same losing side of the debate today.
GayBlackCripple
May 1st, 2009
3:23 pm
Don’t you just love the way Shaunti frames this in such a way that she and her ilk are the “true” victims in all this?
What a joke.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:23 pm
Rollo
I proved your point? How?
American Woman
May 1st, 2009
3:24 pm
Matt2, I’m straight and I’m sick of hearing about tolerance for bigots. Tell me where and when, Hon! I love a good march, and YOUR RIGHTS are as important as everybody else’s! (By the way, if you are who I think you are, say hello to your sweetie for me, and when’s the next HRC event?)
EW
May 1st, 2009
3:25 pm
Rollo,
So tell me. What can homosexuals not do now that they would be able to do after changing the definition of marriage?
- Benefits are up to the individual companies and most have provisions for domestic partners.
- You can leave your stuff to whomever you wish. Just put it in your will.
- You can have children through adoption
- You can put rings on your fingers
- You can even change your names to match if wanted.
Just curious.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
3:27 pm
I apologize for the typos in my last post…but hopefully y’all will look past them
GayBlackCripple
May 1st, 2009
3:28 pm
EW:
Right to many of ex- or late spouse’s benefits, including:
– Social Security pension
– veteran’s pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
– survivor benefits for federal employees
– survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
– additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
– $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
– continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
– renewal and termination rights to spouse’s copyrights on death of spouse
– continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
– payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
– making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Right to benefits while married:
– employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
– per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
– Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
– sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
– veteran’s disability
– Supplemental Security Income
– disability payments for federal employees
– medicaid
– property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
– income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
Joint and family-related rights:
– joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
– joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
– family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
– next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
– custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
– domestic violence intervention
– access to “family only” services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
– Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
– Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.
– Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
– Spouse’s flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
– Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
– Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
– Court notice of probate proceedings
– Domestic violence protection orders
– Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
– Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
– Funeral and bereavement leave
– Joint adoption and foster care
– Joint tax filing
– Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
– Legal status with stepchildren
– Making spousal medical decisions
– Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
– Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
– Right of survivorship of custodial trust
– Right to change surname upon marriage
– Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
– Right to inheritance of property
– Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
Spousal income and assets are counted in determining need in many forms of government assistance, including:
– veteran’s medical and home care benefits
– housing assistance
– happy birthday housing loans for veterans
– child’s education loans
– educational loan repayment schedule
– agricultural price supports and loans
– eligibility for federal matching campaign funds
– Ineligible for National Affordable Housing program if spouse ever purchased a home:
– Subject to conflict-of-interest rules for many government and government-related jobs
– Ineligible to receive various survivor benefits upon remarriage
There are some laws that either benefit or penalize married couples over single people, depending upon their own circumstances:
– Marriage penalty/bonus
– Someone working for their spouse cannot be defined as an “employee”
– Someone cannot change beneficiaries in a retirement plan or from waiving the joint and survivor annuity form of retirement benefit, without the written consent of his or her spouse
– Wages can be garnished at a maximum of 60% (instead of the normal 25% limit) if the garnishing is for alimony or child support
http://www.equalitymatters.org/equality_matters/static/full_reasons
Learn to use the Google, dude.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:30 pm
Good post, Robert
As I told Kim, I’m not against gay marriage and I am a conservative. What I am against is hypocrisy. If intolerance is the rule of the day for liberals, it should be the rule of the day for everyone. Abortions are about a life, not a relationship, but I also would never support someone like Eric Rudolf.
I have seen posts today about MLK being intolerant. Peaceful revolution is about tolerance. it is about convincing the other side to accept your views and people like perez Hilton changed no one’s mind for the positive. I’m afraid this hurt the cause much more than it helped it.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:35 pm
AW
–I’m straight and I’m sick of hearing about tolerance for bigots.–
But those are only the bigots that you disagree with, right? A lot of people see many liberals as bigoted. Tell me whether cool, calm Miss California came off as a bigot or did screaming perez hilton?
Screaming and yelling and intolerance is going to win a lot of fights for the side that is not screaming and yelling and showing intolerance.
What???
May 1st, 2009
3:36 pm
Robert @ 2:59 what are you talking about dude???
Genesis 19
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Romans 1:26-27
Anyone else please feel free to read these verses if you haven’t already. They speak to most of you here.
American Woman
May 1st, 2009
3:39 pm
TOJ, you don’t appear (to me) to be a conservative. You’re far too buttinsky to claim a piece of the traditional conservative pie, IMO. Individual freedom means a bunch of white-haired geezers in Washington, or a perpetually-livid mutliple divorcee like you, do NOT get to dictate to someone else, or someone else’s daughter, what medical procedures she can and cannot seek regarding her own uterus. I have what I think are more accurate descriptive words for your kind, but I’m no Perez Hilton who, while we’re on the subject, really only speaks for himself.
tj5
May 1st, 2009
3:39 pm
This is not a question of equal rights, it’s a question of being able to do whatever you want and not have consequences. If I choose to practice homosexuality, I choose to waive the ability to marry. A straight man can’t be married to another man any more than a gay man can in my state. We therefore have EQUAL rights.
The real question here is what is moral? I define homosexuality as being immoral, and as such, is on the same plane as illegal drugs, incest, adultery, etc. and should not be supported or promoted in the laws of a civilized nation. Those who practice homosexuality simply want their way of life to be defined as morally okay.
Some may think homosexuality is not a choice, but it is just as much a choice as doing illegal drugs is for someone who is addicted to cocaine or as drinking alcohol is for an alcoholic. Although they may be predisposed to it, it is still a choice.
I do not hate or even dislike those who practice homosexuality, but I neither condone nor think our nation should condone actions that are immoral. To do so would simply lead this country down a slippery slope of accepting immorality under the guise of “tolerance.”
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:40 pm
Chris
–The fact is that Christian Militants are the extreme radicals on the losing side of this debate and as long as gay marriage is illegal anywhere in the United States we are going to viciously CRUSH your ignorant intolerance anyway possible–
How would you feel if you read this:
The fact is that liberal Militants are the extreme radicals on the losing side of this debate and as long as abortion is illegal anywhere in the United States we are going to viciously CRUSH your ignorant intolerance anyway possible.
Would that be wrong and why?
EW
May 1st, 2009
3:40 pm
GBC,
Thanks for the answer, dude. Many of the above are not the case (ie you can change you name if you want, you can name you beneficiary to estate in your will, domestic violence potection would extend to coowners of a residence, etc) but I guess that’s what you get from a biased source.
So do you support a polygamist’s right to marriage? How about a pedophile? There are people who are sexually attracted to animals..how ’bout them?
Just curious.
Do you support changing the definition for polygamists?
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:41 pm
Chris,
Sorry, I meant to say The fact is that liberal Militants are the extreme radicals on the losing side of this debate and as long as abortion is legal anywhere in the United States we are going to viciously CRUSH your ignorant intolerance anyway possible.
Chris
May 1st, 2009
3:44 pm
WHY DOESN’T ANYONE EVER THINK OR TALK ABOUT GAY CHILDREN????!!
Two 11 year olds committed suicide in recent weeks by hanging themselves for being teased for being feminine. As a gay person, I ALWAYS knew I was gay since childhood. I was NEVER “confused” about my sexuality. If anyone is actually “confused” ever, guess what, we have a name for that, it’s called bisexual. Straight and Gay people are never “confused” about what they want, so your anti-gay efforts to repress a bisexual’s homosexual side are pointless and will only lead to a divorce later one in one’s life due to all that repression.
Kids today run around using the word “f@g” ALL the time. Anti gay people like YOU are the reason I grew up suicidal as well.
The REAL question to ask is what kind of lessons are we teaching our children by keeping gay marriage illegal? People are gay regardless of being raised by straight or gay parents. It just HAPPENS.
Are the anti gay militants going to take children away from single mothers or fathers? It’s not about having 1 parent or two parents or opposite or same gender parents, it’s about having GOOD parent(s). The anti-gay militants are disgusting and should be ashamed of themselves.
American Woman
May 1st, 2009
3:45 pm
TOJ, to be fair, I thought Mr. Hilton’s behavior was incredibly rude. I thought Miss Cali’s sore loser behavior and trying to steal the spotlight from the winner is rude. I think those kind of pageants are generally rude.
I don’t think taxpayers who demand equal treatment by our government are rude, and I don’t think pointing out the rudeness of denying them equal treatment is rude. I shall continue to try to be more civil, but I will not tolerate bigotry just because you think it’s RUDE not to tolerate bigotry.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:47 pm
AW
–TOJ, you don’t appear (to me) to be a conservative. You’re far too buttinsky to claim a piece of the traditional conservative pie, IMO. Individual freedom means a bunch of white-haired geezers in Washington, or a perpetually-livid mutliple divorcee like you, do NOT get to dictate to someone else, or someone else’s daughter, what medical procedures she can and cannot seek regarding her own uterus. I have what I think are more accurate descriptive words for your kind, but I’m no Perez Hilton who, while we’re on the subject, really only speaks for himself.–
So once again, there is no civil debate with you. if one disagrees, there are no holds barred. And the more valid the opposition’s stance the more vile you become. Of course that is the key. if you have a valid point, the point stands alone. But you don’t so you turn every conversation into another fight.
I stood up for you the other day when Bruno attacked you for sleeping with married men. I would do it again because my principles mean much more to me than your principals mean to me.
Chris
May 1st, 2009
3:48 pm
The Other Jack, nobody knows when a fetus becomes a child, but everyone can agree that people want the government(and other people) out of one’s life. That’s the hypocrisy of the “personal responsibility” conservative viewpoint. It only applies when and where they want it.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
3:48 pm
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Exodus 35:2
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Exodus 21:20-21
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Leviticus 20:9
I just was saying that people should stop saying “because the bible says so” to deter any argument in favor of gay marriage. Religious leaders generally do not advocate for certain extreme statements in the bible, but then postulate that the bible is infallible and we should do as it says in regards to banning homosexuality.
Stan
May 1st, 2009
3:50 pm
“Militant Gays”???
OMG what, do they parachute behind enema lines?
Gays should be able to marry.
Perez should have NEVER been a judge, he doesn’t play in that arena.
Miss Cali had every right to express herself as she did AND lose the tiara due to it.
Joe Mirabella
May 1st, 2009
3:52 pm
Should blacks me more tolerant of racists? You are asking a similar question. To tolerate intolerance is wrong.
Berg532
May 1st, 2009
3:53 pm
tj5
Totally agree with you. Where are the morals??????
And hey y’all can say what you want but I do believe homosexuality is a choice, totally wrong, unnatural, wicked, immoral and any other adjective you can think of. Don’t like it, well just deal with it.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:55 pm
Chris
So is that your entire abortion argument? That no one knows when a fetus becomes a child? And because of the fact, you think that people who believe in the rights of the unborn have no case?
Abortions are about life and death. And it is always the life or death of a relative: a son, a daughter, a nephew, a niece. it is about a son or a daughter or a nephew or niece that dies by the hands of another person. But to you, this debate has no merit but gay marriage does.
What in the hell is happening to this country.
Peadawg
May 1st, 2009
3:56 pm
“Should blacks me more tolerant of racists? You are asking a similar question. To tolerate intolerance is wrong.”
What about white people being tolerant of black racists? That one goes both ways jr.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
3:57 pm
Joe Mirabella
–Should blacks me more tolerant of racists?–
MLK was. H Rapp Brown wasn’t. So how did that work out?
Chris
May 1st, 2009
3:57 pm
Berg532,
Christianity is a choice, being gay is not.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
3:57 pm
Berg532: If homsexuality is wrong because the bible says so, should we kill children who disobey their parents (since the bible advocates for that as well)?
Chris
May 1st, 2009
3:59 pm
The Other Jack,
The fact is that nobody knows when a fetus becomes a child. Even-so, I believe wholeheartedly that nobody on this earth has the right to “own” anyone else and tell them what they should do with their own body.
You stay out of my life, I stay out of yours. I don’t tell you how to run your life especially when we PROFOUNDLY disagree with each other.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
4:03 pm
Chris
i think that is true sometimes. it was no surprise when Glen the clarinet player in the high school band turned out to be gay. But that’s not always the case.
What???
May 1st, 2009
4:05 pm
No Robert, you were trying to discredit what the Bible clearly states about THIS subject by saying the Bible only talks about homosexuality in one Book (which it doesn’t) and by bring up irrelevant topics that one is blogging about.
And are you telling people to not follow the teachings of the Bible??? I know you’re trying to defend gay people and I’m not bashing you for that, but dude don’t go saying stuff like that. You OBVIOUSLY aren’t Christian or a Bible scholar so stop spitting out versus. And you don’t know what religious leaders generally do or don’t do so don’t go there either.
Stop it! Just stop it!
Chris
May 1st, 2009
4:07 pm
The Other Jack,
I also profoundly think that religion is a destructive force to humanity. Since you think abortion and gay marriage should be banned, what is your case against why Christianity and Islam should be done away with?
That’s right, you have none. At the end of the day, whatever the hell you say is your opinion. For 3,000 years before Christianity, people believed in Horus the Sun God who was born on December 25th from a virgin and walked around with 12 disciples, died on a cross and rose again 3 days later. After 3,000 years passed and multiple versions of that story were thrown around, and ancient technology progressed, Christianity came around and took that story for their own. It’s only been around for 2,000 years so yes just because something has been a tradition, this is proof it won’t always remain that way.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
4:09 pm
Chris
–anyone else and tell them what they should do with their own body.–
I have no problem with what they do with their own body, it’s that unborn baby’s body that I am concerned about. i think what bothers me the most about the pro abortion people is the lack of recognition of the other human being involved. You almost never hear a pro abortionist even referring to that child. Most liberals love to scream about respect and disrespecting someone. How about some respect for the unborn child? Can you bring yourself to even mentioning him (her) in the discussion?
–You stay out of my life, I stay out of yours.–
What if I am a serial; killer? What if I know that you are about to kill your Mom? What if I see that you are about to kill your own child?
Rich S
May 1st, 2009
4:12 pm
Straight people suck.
Archie
May 1st, 2009
4:12 pm
Let me just put this out here. The gay movement is not parallel to the civil rights movement of blacks. The gay movement is unique and it has it’s own niche. No one knows you’re gay unless you tell them or make it known somehow. You have some people in Congress, private business, entertainment, etc. that are gay and doing well because no knows they’re gay but that can’t happen to often with a black person unless you’re real fair-skinned. My point is the gay movement has a good cause without trying to draw a parallel to the struggle of blacks. Heck the gay guy at work earns more than me and yet I work harder and it was he who told me that I work harder. I know he’s gay now because he implied such but there were no sighs before that point. Anyway I support gay marriage and I have said so to my family so you don’t need a parallel to the civil rights movement you just need some laws passed.
Robert
May 1st, 2009
4:15 pm
“What??”: I apoligize for not being aware of the two other parts of the bible criticizing homosexuality. However, that doesn’t change these verses in the bible that people continually ignore:
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Exodus 35:2
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Exodus 21:20-21
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.
Leviticus 20:9
Why should we shame homosexuals with the bible as the basis for it but then ignore other aspects of the bible? What do you think of these verses? Should we take the bible word for word?
Peadawg
May 1st, 2009
4:16 pm
“Straight people suck.”
No, gay men and straight women do the sucking.
Sorry, I had to do it. You were asking for that one.
tj5
May 1st, 2009
4:16 pm
I believe homosexuality is wrong on more fronts than just because the Bible says so–although that’s a good place to start. I believe it’s immoral. (1) It is a way of life based entirely upon sexual perversion–the definition being changed from its natural use. (2) It is a way of life that is almost wholly selfish–the only reason to practice gay marriage is because you like it. (3) It is in direct opposition to the family–the basic unit of society–because there is no way to have children without stretching science to its limits. (4) Finally, and probably most importantly, its practice drives a wedge between the sexes–homosexuality is just another excuse to segregate men from women.
Marriage between a man and a woman is a union of the sexes that allows both partners to grow from exposure to the strengths inherent in the opposite sex. Women bring love and nurturing to a marriage because women are naturally more loving and nurturing than men. Men bring strength and structure to the relationship because they are built for work and are inherently more straight-forward than women.
Bringing the two together just makes so much more sense than just sticking with one set of strengths and trying to mimic the strengths of the other. Lets learn to tolerate the opposite sex.
Rich S
May 1st, 2009
4:16 pm
I suck too. But I enjoy doing it.
American Woman
May 1st, 2009
4:17 pm
TOJ, I don’t mean to be rude, but you’re a bigger DRAMA QUEEN than any gay person I’ve ever known! I said IN MY OPINION you aren’t a conservative. That’s not vile. That’s not even un-civil. That’s just me asserting my belief that your desire to employ the law to tell women what to do (something you perhaps are unable to do yourself?) is not a true conservative value. It’s a dinosaur value that has no alliance with the principles of personal freedom. The definition of conservative is certainly open to debate, though, but that’s not uncivil. Have a couple of midol and a wine spritzer already.
Rich S, we’re not free until we’re ALL free. Some of us breeders are on your side, dude.
The Other Jack
May 1st, 2009
4:19 pm
Chris
–I also profoundly think that religion is a destructive force to humanity. Since you think abortion and gay marriage should be banned, what is your case against why Christianity and Islam should be done away with?–
You need to be careful about jumping to conclusions. I don’t care if gays get married. I just can’t stand institutional intolerance. And yes, that is a problem with some religious people, but I see much more intolerance on the other side (As per 90% of the liberal posters here, today)
Abortions? Because of the social engineering from our liberally controlled educational system and our extremely liberally controlled entertainment industry, children are no longer taught the advantages of not having children. So we need to kill a bunch of children off. There is no other solution. We have killed 1/10th of our population, almost 35 million children. I’d like to see that dramatically reduced. How about you?
But the real question is, why are you lecturing me about religion? Do you need to be religious to respect the rights of an unborn child? I don’t think so.
You guys are way too quick to grab on to stereotypes, while at the same time, any conservative that thinks all gay people act like Perez Hilton would never be tolerated. .