"Some gay-rights foes claim they now are bullied"
Read... and weep: What convoluted reasoning... and shameless audacity:
(My apology for making this a Journal... but I felt that it would receive greater attention here than in the Forum.)
This does not seem so outrageous to me - what makes it 'convoluted reasoning' or 'shameless audacity'?
But it strikes me as a bit bizarre when rights "granted" to one segment of society (LGBT) --- rights that in no way limit the sovereignty or rights of others --- is said to infringe upon others' "rights" to deny you yours.
Am I to understand that you see it differently?
Pshaw, like saying 'actually' is necessary. I should say I'm predictably going to agree with MacAvity. Actually, though, I was thinking that before I saw eir comment. Sure, they're wrong, but they have a point. People do react very strongly in some places to non-supporters of gay rights. I'm reminded of a political cartoon I saw once, which I am unable to find but shall quote.
Gay person: 'Bigot! Homophobe! Asshole!'
Other guy: 'No, I'm not homophobic, I just happen to believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman.'
Gay person: 'Get away, uberconservative idiot! Take your predjudice somewhere else!' (punches Other guy)
Other guy: 'Yeah, now I'm beginning to feel a little phobia set in...'
This is, of course, an exaggeration and a somewhat offensive one at that, but it illustrates the point the 'victims' in question are trying to make.
What isn't discussed in the article, however, is that the same thing can be applied to both sides. Gay rights are, no duh, very controversial, and picking any opinion at all will get you many enemies.
However, seeing as gay rights do not abolish straight rights, the 'bullies' are generally the nay-sayers. It can go both ways, though, and while I think those 'victims' are trying to generate sympathy for their cause and stir people up more than anything else, it's not hopelessly exaggerated. I know someone who has deliberately not signed a little boy up for Boy Scouts because of their policy. If anything, reactions like this are a good thing, because corporations and such are more likely to take a pro-gay stance. The end. Wow.woW
Well, if I were campaigning furiously to, say, (choosing something ridiculous) make bacon illegal, and the pro-bacon side constantly won lawsuits and I was disciplined at my job for saying I didn't support bacon, I'd be mad...
(I love bacon btw. Just sayin'.)
Okay, that was a terrible analogy. What I'm saying is their outrage is predictable and it is expected that they will try to counter everything gay rights activists do.
One side is always going to feel bullied. The opposition feeling that role now is a sign of progress, heh.
This is out of the Anne Coulter playbook, she writes endless books about the liberal media and how right wing speech isn't given access to the airwaves. I know this because she was just on 80 talk shows in the last week saying how no one gives the right wing any air time. ;-)
"Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are." - Kurt Cobain
theres a differnce between getting out rights and taking it too far so wer are now the oppresors. we shouldnt want no one to disagree with us, we should just want the rights, and once we have those, we can for the most part go our seperate ways from those who disagree with us.
"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?"
there are just so many variables that make this a difficult discussion. The side against could be very peaceful with their message whereas they have the "kill all the gays" extremists. Then we have the pro rights supporters that are peaceful and then we have the "assume their too bigoted and verbally attack them" people.
My point being is that the methods taken by both sides can be rather oppressive or peaceful. So yes the anti side can feel attacked, however the anti side's more radical section can be much, much worse than the pro side.
But... just a footnote:
I have no argument with one's right to disapprove of a behavior of another (no matter how irrational the justification may be).
What is truly galling is the argument that rights granted LGBT (e.g., adoption, marriage...) will limit others' abilities to actively seek their disenfranchisement.
Anyway... great points have been made.
btw... Canada, also, is not immune:
"Just weeks after Canada’s federal election, delegates at the Conservative Party Convention have raised a dead social issue over the weekend, discussing and voting on a resolution to ban same-sex marriage in Canada."
They cannot abide the word "affirm" when referring to LGBT issues:
Can we say "sad"... or, maybe, "ridiculous?"
If same sex marriage gets banned... I highly doubt it will. If they raise the issue it's just going to cause a lot of unnecessary social tension, and what with politics and PR and whatnot it's probably not a smart move, but because of the majority government Harper can pretty much do whatever he wants.
But if it gets banned, I will be so, so, so mad. I was fortunate enough to grow up knowing I could get married, and thinking about all the gay kids who won't be able to say the same breaks my heart, not to mention how enacting a ban would completely violate so many civil rights.