An elderly lady stands firm at a mob scene where those in favor of homosexual marriage surround her, threaten her, beat their hands in the air, and rip the cross from her hands and stomp on it. Her response? Stay put, pray, and says she loves them. And they say Christians opposing homosexuality are haters? Get a grip. What is most amazing about this video is the idiotic summation of what happened by KPSP TV anchorman, Kris Long. We have truly lost our minds.
Would you have the courage of your convictions enough to remain calm in the throes of an angry mob? Food for thought.
8 comments:
The difference is, that woman who "opposes homosexuality" can be legally married; the homosexuals cannot. Why the discrimination?
The woman has every right to oppose homosexuality. However, denying the civil right of a legal marriage to a group of citizens because they fall in love with a member of the same sex is a different matter entirely. That is wrong and unconstitutional. The soldiers are the protesters. They are fighting for their civil and constitutional rights, as they should.
Why do all these religious nuts have a problem with gays getting married? If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, then don't. If your church doesn't want to perform same sex weddings, fine, then don't. People who support civil and constitutional rights for ALL people, regardless of race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation don't want to force the people who oppose gay marriage to marry gays. Why do the people who oppose gay marriage want to impose their beliefs on others and deny them their rights?
Doesn't make sense to me. Why do they care if 2 people in love get married? Seems to me they should be happy for them and support them, but at the very least, leave them alone.
No discrimination at all. Why? It is not a civil rights issue.
A common argument is that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. But is it? As Americans, both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights — the right to get an education, own a home, pursue a career, live where they want, worship as they choose and vote their convictions. As Americans, this is the way it should be.
But, gay activists say their civil rights are violated because homosexuals can't marry whom they want. This argument is flawed because heterosexuals can't marry whomever they want, either. If a man fell in love with his sister, his daughter or his female first cousin, society would prohibit him from marrying her. And, society would also prohibit a woman from marrying her brother, son or male first cousin even if she fell in love with him. There are moral laws in our society against this.
In our society, marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman. A man can marry a woman of his choice and a woman can marry a man of her choice as long as that person is not already married and is distant in terms of blood relationship. This is held as morally acceptable by the majority of Americans and should not be changed. As proof, over 25 states have already passed marriage amendments defining valid marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman by an overall margin of 2 to 1.
The argument against gay marriage is not based on prejudice, hate or shoving one's morals down another's throat. It is based on societal moral convictions on what is natural and normal. And these moral convictions have been held for centuries. No, gay marriage is not about civil rights, it is about approval. It is about a small percentage of the population working to have their behavior, which the majority of Americans find morally wrong, accepted as normal by society. In deciding about Prop. 8, keep this in mind.
By Frank Nolton
Woodbridge
http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2008/10/17/opinion/letters/ltr_nolton_081016.txt
Exactly. So, as long as a gay individual is not marrying their brother, sister, etc., why are they held to a different standard than a straight citizen? So you have only make the point that it is precisely a civil rights issue and an issue of discrimination.
Funny, for years women were denied the right to vote using exactly the same argument that you are quoting to deny gays the right to marry...enforcing "societal standards."
Even if you make the "societal standards" argument, you lose there anyway as society has changed to where it is clearly acceptable to be openly homosexual by today's societal standards.
Thankfully some states are enforcing the rights of all individuals to marry. And with some Obama appointments to the Supreme Court, homosexuals can look forward to the last great battle for civil rights in the United States, the fight for homosexuals to have the same rights afforded to other citizens, resolved in their favor in the years to come.
The different standard is that it is God's standard, one that has been universally accepted for thousands of years. "If anything has ML King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his name for a cause he never supported."
"The civil rights movement for which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All of us are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth: The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. The newly fashionable claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim, back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of liberty and justice for all."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3
I could agree with you on some of the last statement. Unfortunately, marriage has become more than just a religious or societal right. Gay marriage isn't about religious morals, as much as the religious nuts try to make it that. It is about a legal entity a couple needs to have the same rights heterosexual couples have when trying to buy a home, pay taxes, adopt children, etc. You stated, "both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights — the right to get an education, own a home,..." but denying homosexuals the right to a legal marriage effectively denies them those rights you quoted.
A heterosexual married couple can qualify to borrow money to own a home, but a homosexual couple who cannot legally marry may not qualify. They are held to a different standard.
A heterosexual couple can get tax benefits as a married couple. These benefits are denied to the exact same homosexual couple. They are held to a different standard.
A heterosexual married couple may more easily adopt children; a homosexual couple may not qualify if legal marriage is a requirement. They are held to a different standard.
Just as with so many other civil rights battles for women, blacks, American Indians, immigrants, etc., the opposition who wishes (for some reason) to impose their moral standards on other citizens who do not believe like they do, seeks to paint the issue as about "societal standards," morals, religion, etc. Marriage is a legal issue. The issue of gay marriage is almost entirely a legal issue for the homosexuals whose civil rights are being denied.
everything you describe is a personal choice. What gays want is not a civil right. It is personal want. Sometimes individuals don't get what they want.
Anonymous-
"However, denying the civil right of a legal marriage to a group of citizens because they fall in love with a member of the same sex is a different matter entirely. That is wrong and unconstitutional."
There is nothing in the Constitution to protect homosexual marriage but let's examine your statement. What about if someone falls in love with sheep? Why should society get involved to prevent that from happening? You may argue that this is a ridiculous statement and that sheep loving is not natural and just wrong. There are many who disagree but the vast majority of our country would agree with you. The vast majority of our country would also agree that homosexual marriages are wrong.
The people in the individual states should be afforded the opporutnity to vote homosexual marriage up or down in each of their states. It shouldn't be a matter for the courts to simply dictate.
"The people in the individual states should be afforded the opporutnity to vote homosexual marriage up or down in each of their states. It shouldn't be a matter for the courts to simply dictate." said anonymous.
I agree completely. As a matter of fact, thirty of the fifty states have voted and they voted NO to homosexual marriage. In CA, they had to vote twice because the courts overturned the first citizen initiative.
Post a Comment