« Save Big Three, but ax the execs | Main | Where are their brains? »

December 11, 2008

Gay Americans deserve equal rights

Jonah Goldberg (12/4, Opinion) writes that “gay-rights groups … and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war.” Goldberg implies that people ought not to work to change cultural traditions. But what if those traditions are unjust?

America has traditionally denied gay people equal civil rights, but that tradition is immoral. All Americans should have the same rights to freedom and self-development.

Would Goldberg have called slaves escaping their masters in the antebellum South “aggressors in the culture war?”

Beth Sperry
Kansas City



I wonder why BuddyT did not make any "gag me" comments on this thread.

Pub 17

Criswell Predicts that this thread is going to get at least four people banned forever before the evening's out.


Jonah Goldberg is a graduate of Goucher College.

Goucher College was a Methodist girl's school.

I find that ... interesting.

I also find the Mormon efforts to protect "marriage" ... interesting. Let's hope they stop short of "plural marriages to underage girls" this time.


The question is whether our friend Jim is a "tool" for good or evil.



I'm simply taking you at your word. Your huffy, childish reaction says much more about you and your intolerance of other points of view than it does about me. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Pub 17

No, Michael, among big people, what you tried to pull was a cheap debating trick. You got caught, that's all.


I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to assume they knew my position on whether or not I believe someone is born gay or not. You're a tool Jim. Thanks for letting me use you.

Pub 17

Oh, I've attended those little get-togethers in college. A ring of maybe fifteen or twenty dorm residents, male and female, each with an unlit candle in front of them on the floor. The group leader passes a lit candle around, and those who've chosen to be gay or lesbian light their little candle, those who choose to be fruitful and multiply pass the lit candle on. It's really a beautiful and moving ceremony.

[How long before this gets quoted in a fundie newsletter?]


I'm sure Michael would be happy to regale us all with the story of the day he "chose" to be heterosexual.

Pub 17

Judith Sheindlin in a thong.


Who is anyone to define "lewd"?


First point: Noone has definitively proven whether people are "born gay" or not. Despite many studies, nothing has been proven yet. You'll hear that "this or that MAY contribute..." and things like that, but that's far from definitive. I'm not going to say one way or the other, cause I honestly don't know. I have my own beliefs, but that is hardly any sort of proof.

Second, if all this is is about the right of "marriage", then why do so many in the gay rights groups shun civil unions that grant the exact same rights as marriage, just by a different name?


Casady I see you point, those scenarios are quite different, although brought on by choices. Sodomy is simply not something that shoud be advocated, heterosexual or homosexual. We coud I suppose lump lewd sexual behvior right in with the rest of things, why not. We already spend tons of money fighting for cures, prevention, education, tolerance, regulation, etc. for the areas you mention. I suppose I will change my stance as you do bring some valid light to this. I will not endorse, embrace nor advocate homosexual behavior only tolerate it. We all must be tolerant of one another I guess. Of course us men are of no value except when it comes to being a financier.


People who would deny a gay couple who'd marry the same rights as heteros are wrong, pure and simple. There is no reasonable threat to the culture from people who desire the same tax regulations, the rights of inheritance and insurance benefits at a man/woman married couple. People who claim their objections are on religious principles are religious bigots.


"One pint to consider however, A.I.D.S. contracted by irresponisible behavior, sodomy or intravaneous drug use, shold not be covered by group medical."

I sort of see your point here NMMNG but let me pose this scenario which I feel is a fair comparison. (God Fobid)your 17 year old gets in a car accident after having a few beers at a kegger and requires major surgery to survive. Should that be covered by your major medical? We are talking about the same pretty much; irresponsible behavior. Better yet, you find that, at 52 you need a major bypass because you chose to eat sausage omelets ever morning and pok chops every night for the last 30 years and you smoke a pack a day. Should coverage for that procedure also be denied? Where do you draw the line?


Wycowolf shows the true ignorance of some on this matter. The issue is that gays are NOT attracted to people of the opposite sex in a romantic/sexual way -only those of the same sex. They were BORN that way.

Heterosexuals - imagine being on another planet where you could only marry someone of the same sex - NOT the opposite sex.
Would you want to choose between being married to someone of the same sex or have to live alone because you can't stand the thought of you engaging in gay sex and are forbidden to marry someone of the opposite sex? That's the dilemma for those who are truly born gay.

Pub 17

Because the Lord said, "Be fruitful and multiply," Jim, and gays can't do that. I got that lecture over on another blog.

I guess that means that, since my wife and I were both over fifty when we got married, I get to nail a couple of our daughters to stay right with God. Old Testament scholarship, it's a beautiful thing, innit?


"Your rights can be taken away too."

Yes, indeed. That's what Prop 8 did in California.

No one's looking for "special rights" here, we're simply looking for equal rights. Wycowolf says that argument doesn't hold water because we can marry people of the opposite sex just the same as anyone else. That's missing the point entirely, though. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love, the person they want to spend their life with. Gay people can't do that, and have been given no legitimate reason why that is so.


Let gays marry, who cares. They should not receive special rights however, meaning you get what goes with the territory. So long as gays are not lewd in public, why should anyone care. One pint to consider however, A.I.D.S. contracted by irresponisible behavior, sodomy or intravaneous drug use, shold not be covered by group medical. [EDITED BY MODERATOR]

Pub 17

And speaking of the Bible--
I picked this up from another site a few days ago: if you cite the Bible verses that inveigh against men lying with men as proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality, what about women lying with women?
Anybody got any Bible quotes about women lying with women?
Gay is bad, but lesbian is OK with the Lord?
Inquiring minds want to know, particularly if you've got photos.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright