Atom Feed (xml)
The below article is copied\pasted and well worth a read however I would like to point out this blog owner sides with Miss California and agrees 100% with her on this issue: Marriage should be between a man and a woman period. That's not taking anything from gays it's just promoting a societal norm if gays want to live together and visit in hospitals so be it, they can have a union for that, but not a marriage because that would be promoting gay as a norm. In real life some gays have learned to be gay not all are born gay (FACT). Also many gays are militant and intolerant in real life, at least the many I've encountered. Gays tried to push themselves on me many a time while I was a young man away from home... now older and wiser thank God.
Tolerance Must Go Both Ways
By Alex Lindquist
On Sunday, people were stunned upon watching as Carrie Prejean, AKA “Miss California,” made comments about her beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman. She revealed her opinion in a modest way about how it was the way she was raised, and that no offense is intended for anyone.
While I completely disagree with her opinion, I admire her courage for speaking the truth. Many women in contests such as these will compromise their personal beliefs in an attempt to butter up the judges with answers that they believe will earn them that top spot. Miss Prejean didn’t cave into that pressure, which makes her a rarity among the contestants.
I feel bad for her that the backlash was so great against her. I especially don’t approve of judge Perez Hilton saying she didn’t win “because she’s a dumb bitch.” That right there is an example of being just as intolerant on the other team. Within the gay communities I know, there are homosexuals who hate this woman. Just leave her alone and learn some tolerance of your own. How can anybody be expect others to tolerate them if they haven’t learned any tolerance of their own?
Too often, it seems the gay media focuses too much on opinions of who’s right, and anytime a public figure discusses an opinion that isn’t in favor of gay marriage, that person faces the wrath gays and gay supporters. Suddenly everything becomes about who is right rather than focusing on what the real dilemma is, which is equality. Homosexuals should have the right to marry, and it’s a crime that people from a religious background are fighting it. However, no matter what the outcome, people also have the right to not agree with gay marriage. Being against gay marriage is an opinion, but being part of a movement against equality of gays is a completely different story.
Perez Hilton, YOU are dumb bitch, and you should learn some tolerance of your own before calling names like a schoolyard bully. It’s reasons like this why I hate beauty contests.... a girl can never win just by being herself.
Credit: Original post
9 comments:
Funny how tolerance DOESN'T work both ways. And it isn't just the gay community, either, as you know.
Perez Hilton is just an angry person who gossips about others, so I take him at face value. The others who immediately came to his aid, and those who said Prajean was,"entitled to her opinion, even if it is wrong' are the real scary people here. That they think they are right by defacto by being gay is what is wrong.
We should beegalitarian regarding persons. Yet be elitist regarding ideas.
When you are elitist regarding ideas, you are acknowledging that some ideas are better than others. And they are. We don't treat all ideas as if they have the same merit, lest we run into contradiction. Some ideas are good, some are bad. Some are true, some are false. Some are brilliant, others are just plain foolish." The first principle, what might be called "civility," is at the heart of the classical view of tolerance. It can be loosely equated with the word "respect."
Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. We respect those who hold different beliefs than our own by treating them courteously and allowing their views a place in the public discourse. We may strongly disagree with their ideas and vigorously contend against them in the public square, but we still show respect for the persons in spite of our differences.
Classic tolerance requires that every person be treated courteously with the freedom to express his ideas without fear of reprisal no matter what the view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. These two categories are frequently conflated in the muddled thinking created by the myth of tolerance.
The view that one person's ideas are no better or truer than another's is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance
JARNCO5,
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. As my post here outlines, starting at about the fourth paragraph, I do not believe same sex couples can or should be able to marry.
In addition to the legal and linguinstic can of worms that would be opened by allowing marriage to be redefined, I have a problem with the choice of lifestyle too.
From my reading, the homsexual lifestyle is a high risk lifestyle that can cut 20-40 years off one's life expectancy. (I think that's worse than smoking, drinking to excess or abusing illegal drugs) I wouldn't encourage anyone I love to engage in other risky lifestyle choices and I don't see why this should be any different.
Just like I would do my best to deter someone from choosing to become a drug abuser or take up smoking, I feel the same duty here.
If one chooses, against common sense, to engage in this lifestyle, one can just head on over to the local hospital and fill out the paperwork allowing one's partner to be given visiting priveledges. It doesn't require a bunch of political foo-fa-rah to get your partner to be allowed to visit-just a bit of paperwork. Same thing for an inheritance.
Health benefits? Work for an employer who will provide them or ask your employer to do so. There are companies who do.
Not many and it's expensive-remember that high risk stuff I mentioned earlier? Health insurance companies deal with reality, not political correctness. That's why a prominent gay rights group was unable to provide partner benefits for their own employees-because the health risks associated with that lifestyle choice drive the cost up.
One group doesn't(or at least they shouldn't) get to undermine the law(by fiddling with the language) just because they want to avoid paperwork. Legislating by redefinition is not and should not be an easy button for special interest groups.
CMM,
No, you don't disagree with me. We are on the same page. I wrote the bold part above the copied article.
The article was worth reading is what I said and I let it be known my opinion.
Thanks for clarifying the confusion I may have created in not being clear.
Thanks for the clarification JARNCO5.
I was not at my best yesterday and missed something like that at another blog too.
I shouldn't be surprised, it's been a long week.
My apologies for my poor attention to details and my thanks that you are willing to take the time to correct my mistake.
CMM,
I was not clear enough part my fault and you are one of my better comment writers to respond on issues.
Thanks!
Well said, respectful of others but still having your own opion! - that does a lot more good than the z-man that I keep hearing about.
First didn't think much about what runner-up Miss CA said, but I quess it IS a big thing. Good for her!
Good post - this---We in CA have met w/ much violent intolerance on the part of organized homosexual groups...
C-CS
Good article you posted. I'm glad someone on the other side recognize the intolerance and garbage that was thrown on Prejean for stating her belief - when asked to do so. I'm glad she (Prejean) stood strong through all of it.
Post a Comment