Some ignorant person stated, “I have as yet to read, see, or hear any gay or lesbian activist openly state or demand that their identification of a same sex lifestyle be received by society as valid, legal, correct or moral.”
*the word choice has been edited out and replaced with a more correct word.
Being gay is correct, valid, legal (in most states), and moral. The reason you see it “cloaked”, as you so subversively put it, with adoption, marriage, the military is because the American public views those institutions as a scale of morality. Gay people are equally capable of performing all the necessary tasks entailed in any of those functions.
The comparisons you say gay peoplemake (adoption, marriage, military service, etc) are put there so the radical right does not focus on the sexual issue. The radical right can’t get over the ick factor so we as gay people are forced to prove that rights we are equally as capable in those issues that the straight majority has as an inherent quality.
I can’t see how the radical right people would not support the the so called “homosexual agenda”. It would be putting people into loving committed relationships, allow the mass of unwanted children to be put into a home more quickly and efficiently since gay people would be allowed to adopt easier, and it would also allow gay people to be as foolish as their straight counterparts and go to war and die for the outdated ideals that the radical right pretends to encompass. Personally, I would think that the radical right as a group would actually encourage gay people to join the military or some other profession with a high mortality rate or at least a profession where dying can be put into the job description. Personally I wouldn’t endorse this idea because I don’t believe the military as a killing institution should exist in the form it is in today. (moderate hijack alert That is a whole other topic, but to say it briefly…I think the “military” should become something like a Peace Corps organization and provide safety for people in danger through non-lethal activities (a good lack of trade could work wonders), provide instruction for agriculture and water purification, and last but not least, provide training for the people that the “military” is deemed to aid to become self sufficient at least in the most modest sense of the idea.end hijack)
pashley also stated, “Disagree with a gay groups’ agenda, and you’re automatically labelled a “bigot”, “hatemonger” or “intolerant”, and they are calling US hateful, intolerant?”
Well, if the shoe fits. The reason a person is labeled as a hatemonger if they oppose the basic civil rights that we as gay people want is because if you replace gay with black, jew, Catholic, Hindu, etc then the resulting clause is a hateful, demeaning idea. For example, I don’t think Catholics should marry because their lifestyle is amoral. Or, Black people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because they are often involved in criminal activity. (As you can see by a previous link, gay activities are illegal in what was it 11 or 12 states?) They fired Abdul last week because he was Hindu. And last, Jews shouldn’t allowed to be in the military because their beliefs will distract the other soldiers and will foster a lower morale. These ideas with whatever word you want to throw in are just plain silly.
Gay people don’t want special rights, just equal rights. We want to marry the person we love (although Bruce Villanch doesn’t…see Politically incorrect several weeks ago), we want to have the choice to raise a family/adopt in the way we see fit like heterosexuals are permitted, and we want to have the right to perform in any type of job that we are capable of without being harassed or fired simply because we are gay. Pretty simple.
The fact that people actually oppose these basic civil rights is significantly more abhorrent. I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said something to the effect that no one is truly free as long as one group in society is not allowed to partake of all the freedoms accorded to another. By actively opposing gay legislation, you are then deemed part of the problem because you are opposing one group a freedom that you are accorded. That is why opposing gay legislation is labled bigotted.
Let’s assume that you have a child. There is no assurance that your child is straight. I will play the assume game and assume that you want your child to grow up in a morally loving and safe environment. Now let’s assume that your child picks up your ideology on homosexuality. He now equates gayness to abhorrent behaviour and something that should be stricken from the earth at the most severe case or something more akin to being a second class citizen at best. Now let’s assume that when your child turns 16 he finally starts to come out with his own gayness. Would you rather have him think of himself as a second class citizen (probably at best) or a complete freak of nature who is not worthy of a loving, commited relationship because the country currently does not sanction it? Wouldn’t you want your child to be happy as long as he is not hurting anybody and pursuing mutual happiness with someone who has the same emotional fixation as he has? Or, would you try to steal that opportunity away from him and have him live a closeted, afraid existence? Which one of those ideas are more moral? The one that your child is true to himself or the one where he lies and hides who he is and how he feels? By your previous posts I would assume that you would take the second and have him hide who he is and not actually be able to achieve happiness. If that is the case, do you think he will ever achieve any closeness with you or will it only be a feigned closeness? Where is the morality in that? Also, where is the true aspect of love in that equation? Love should be something that “knows no boundaries” and should always be accepting as long as it actively does not hurt the mutual participants. Riddle me that, Batman.