Wrong to protest a day honoring homosexuals?
I personally think that a day of silence BY them would be great. Most of the time they seem very keen to draw attention to their deviancy. But trying to impose silence on others for a whole day is just more arrogance from them and rejection of it is perfectly reasonable
On April 20, when Wolcott High School junior Seth Groody wore a T-shirt depicting a rainbow symbolic of gay rights on the front with a slash over it, he was doing so in protest of the day being designated “Day of Silence” — part of the national movement to raise awareness of bullying and harassment of gays and lesbians. His shirt also pictured female and male stick figures holding hands on the back, under the phrase, “Excessive Speech Day.”
Curiously, in the Wolcott case of the student wearing a T-shirt expressing his anti-gay sentiment, Groody found himself with an unusual defender — the ACLU. Defending the teen’s First Amendment rights, Sandra Staub, the director of the ACLU of CT, told the Hartford Courant, “The ACLU has fought hard for same-sex marriage and we couldn’t agree with Seth less on that issue, but he is absolutely correct about his right to express his opinion.”
There needs to be a distinction made between free-speech and appropriate speech — what is going to better our community, and what needs to be defended against tearing it down. My hope is that while the ACLU was absolutely correct in defining Groody’s right to spew his hate, there were more people that stood up to say, “We repudiate it.”
More here
So it is "spewing hate" to reject being told what to do? A very Fascist perspective.
No doubt homosexuals do get bullied at times in schools but a perfectly simple way for homosexuals to avoid that in most cases would be to shut up about it. At least they have that option. When Asians are bullied by blacks at public schools there is not much the Asians can do about it. How about a national day of silence for Asian kids bullied by blacks? That would be much more justifiable and it is certainly a bigger problem.
But I guess it is "racist" to mention that reality. When reality is racist we all have a big problem. Thomas Sowell (who is black) also deplores the way Asians have to put up with far more than homosexuals do
18 comments:
This is yet another good example for those who actually believe gays want "equality". They do not. What they really want, and have already achieved for the most part, is to be deemed a "special class", with rights and protections above and beyond those enjoyed by everyone else. The invention of the so-called hate crime laws was a perfect example of radical gays getting their way from the elected lying crooks in govt. No one has yet explained why slapping a gay is a more serious crime than slapping a non-gay.
What radical gays also want is the ability to set the rules for everyone. They demand total tolerance from everyone, while they show absolutely none for anyone they disagree with. Irionically, it is their own attitude and intolerance that is damaging their cause, far more than those who disagree with them ever could.
A.Levy - you are just what the psychologists call "projecting". What rights do gays "demand" that nobody else has? Yet you "demand" that they cannot be legally married.
A law against group-hate crime not only applies to gays but to any other social group, including one you might belong to such as "Christians", and they are always bleeting about being an oppresseed group and the victims of atheists and leftists, etc. like some paranoids despite the actual undemocratic advantages they enjoy in many Western societies.
Hey Mr. from Downunder - Bullying is bullying, and equally bad to a child victim whether or not he or she is gay, asian, black, or any other category - you sound like a bigot and a homophobe!!
Anon 2:4 asks what right do homosexuals demand that nobody else has? They can be legally married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is what marriage is and there is no other definition for it.
4:00 As for your comment about "definition" of marriage, are you so unaware that once in very recent US history that marriage was also confined to persons of one DEFINED race? Or in South Africa or Nazi Germany? And don't come back about opposite genders being concerned, because that it's about definitions! Also marriage was allowed between multiple partners, also in America with the Mormons and in other parts of the world even now. Marriage was also allowed between children (as we would now DEFINE children), and still there are forced and arranged marriages going on even in the US without the law intervening. So put that in your bigoted pipe and ...!
Fine. Give the gays their day of silence. I'll just take the remaining 364 to promote the proper and natural order that is heterosexuality.
"natural order" - history is full of oppressive regimes saying just that.
Why should legal marriage only be between persons of the opposite sex unless it was ONLY for the intended procreation of offspring; in which case infertile couples should not be allowed to marry or those obviously too old, or those declaring their wish not to have childen; and even forcing couples to divorce who then prove unable to have children.
In short, if two adults of whatever gender cannot legally marry on the same basis as any other two, then nobody should be allowed to marry legally.
Of course what ceremonies any religion or other organization wishes to carry out unofficially as a marriage under their own rules is up to them and has no relevance outside their own community
everyone has the right to marry the opposite sex, there aren't any special rights needed or added.
Anon 5:12 AM said: "natural order" - history is full of oppressive regimes saying just that.
Sadly, that is true. So answer this: If the vast majority of the world's population agrees that homosexuality is morally wrong, do you consider that vast majority to be an "oppressive" regime"?
12:16 Well, it depends how they express that moral objection in practical terms. That is why some enlightened countries like the USA have a Constitution specifically to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". Democracy should not be the equivalent of two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner"!
I'm sorry if all this is new to you if you are not an American citizen or resident.
12:37 There would be no special rights as then anyone could marry someone of the same gender, including you. So you see how silly it is when you have a right you cannot use or want, just as it is now for gays!
I am gay, and i do not support special days for gays or any other group.I also do not support gay marriage. I am 18 and a virgin and celebate, and plan to stay that way.
Anon 303 said, "That is why some enlightened countries like the USA have a Constitution specifically to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority".
Your interpretation of the Constitution is spot on, but you are looking at the issue backwards. This is not a "tyranny of the majority" because marriage is a traditional and historical institution that is between a man and a woman. The "tyranny" in this case is the minority homosexual agenda from which the majority must be protected.
2:40 You beg the question - What is the "homosexual agenda"? -And if it's about equal marriage - how does that affect the marriages of supposed heterosexuals (which already end in nearly 50% divorce rates).
As for what is "a traditional and historical insitution" - well, so was slavery and public hanging, etc.,etc. That is no argument to keep a cultural practice! But in any case, it has also been traditional in some quarters to have polygamous marriage, marriage to children, forced arranged marriages and other such marriages besides a simplistic "one man and one woman".
Find a better argument to justify why any two adults should not enter a voluntary legal union known as "marriage" on the same basis as any other two adults.
2:40AM: you speak of minority agendas "oppressing" the majority. I suppose you realize that the Abolitionists (of slavery) were originally a minority with an agenda, that was opposed by the majority opinion; and then later those against racial segregation were opposed by the majority in the South ar least; and that "Votes for Women" was a monority movement opposed by the majority of male voters. Maybe you would have agreed with those majorities at the time, but it shows that minority "agendas" can turn into law eventually especially when it extends equal rights, and so might the right of all adult people to marry regardless of gender, as is now the case in several countries.
Have you heard of "King Canute", you sound like him!
The "homosexual agenda" is about equal rights, but it is doing so by trying to re-define marriage. Go ahead and label homosexual unions "civil unions" and then legislate all the equal rights you want into it. I have no problem with that. Just don't re-define marriage to something that it is not.
However, the definition of marriage is not up to you or your co-religionists, but as the LAW may define it, either now or in the future - and some other countries have already re-defined (or extended the definition) to incorporate same-sex couples on an equal basis to differently-sexed couples (regardless of race, religion, etc.)
Post a Comment