Saturday, May 2, 2009

Is hate and intolerance on the part of liberal activists justifiable?

Some people on the far left take the issue of homosexual marriage, and the liberal agenda, very personally. However, IMHO, the ends do not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?

Here are three recent examples of hate and intolerance from gay and liberal activists:

Both sides feel that they have the moral high-ground. Many people on the right feel just as passionately about this issue as those on the left do. However, I do not see them behaving baldy. There may be exceptions, but the bad behavior on the left, far outweighs the bad behavior on the right.

Homosexual activists and some on the left are convinced that redefining marriage to include homosexual unions, is a God given right and thus guaranteed by our constitution. IMHO it is neither. IMHO gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is true that some activists and sympathizers on the left get their feelings hurt when others present a contrary opinion on this issue. That does not give them the right to publicly insult, blacklist, and harm the businesses and careers of others.

There are no laws on the books that restrict a persons right to life, liberty and property due to homosexual behavior. Only the laws of nature and God restrict the lives and liberties of homosexual behavior. Gods laws prevents children from resulting from homosexual unions. Gods laws makes those who practice homosexual behavior more susceptible to disease and early death. [Some think that universal health care is a right (which it is not) because it might help equalize the lifespans between the rich and the poor.] Natural law and/or Gods law, allows the innate characteristics of men and women to complement and restrain each other's positive and negative tendencies. Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions does not change these universal laws of God and nature.

However, US laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman does not restrict homosexual freedom under the law. If those who practice homosexual behavior would like to have a legally recognized union, very few people are opposed to that. However, most people resent the redefinition of the institution of marriage to include homosexual behavior. People on the right feel that they have a legitimate argument, just as much as people on the left feel that their argument is moral, just and fair.

Why is it that one side gives themselves permission to behave badly and intentionally hurt the, feelings, jobs, careers and businesses of those that they have a politically different opinion from? Both sides feel they justifiably have the moral high ground.

This issue can not be compared to race, because race is an innate human characteristic. Homosexual behavior is just that, a behavior. Many people may have overwhelming compulsions and desires to practice this behavior, however, it is still a behavior. Homosexual behavior is not compatible with the values that most of us assign to the institution of marriage. Most of us consider marriage to be the ideal situation to raise our children. There are other situations where children are raised, such as foster care, orphanages, single parents, and blended families However, the intact family that is encouraged through traditional marriage, combines the feminine characteristics of the natural mother and the masculine characteristics of the natural father to provide the best environment for a growing family and society. This has proved to be the ideal way to raise children and to move our society in a positive direction. IMHO, anything that diminishes this institution will lead to the weakening and eventual collapse of our society. Single parents, divorce and marital infidelity should also be discouraged for the same reason.

In California, gay rights activists have gone so far as to demand that the state eliminate marriage altogether and replace it with civil unions for everyone if homosexual marriage does not become the law of the land. This is the clearest example of gay activists' desire to diminish the importance and sanctity of the institution of marriage as we know it.

It is a sign of a declining society when one groups demonizes and intimidates another group for their deep seated beliefs. No one has the right to, intimidate, and bully good people with different opinions into silence. Yet homosexual activists are doing just that with their hateful and intolerant attacks against anyone who publicly states opposing opinions.

I do not object to a civil discussion on this matter, however, I am offended by callous, illegal, immoral and unacceptable behavior by many gay activists and their sympathizers. People opposed to gay marriage feel just as strongly about this issue, yet they restrain their behavior to civil discourse. It seems to me that activists on the left feel that all restraints on human behavior are wrong. This is not true, self restraint and legal restraint is what keeps us free, prosperous and strong.

Lets have a discussion where both sides are equally restrained in their rhetoric. Their may be some exceptions but,the only "hate speech" that I hear in this discussion comes from the left. The ends does not justify the means. Hate and intolerance will not beget love and acceptance. All I ask is that we have a civil discussion. Am I asking too much?


Anonymous said...

100% agree with you. Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical scumbags

Anonymous said...

100% agree with you. Liberals are just a bunch of hypocritical scumbags.