gaypride

Gay Rights Above All Else

With so many being punished for their traditional stance on marriage, I often wonder just how far the homosexual activists are willing to go in order to force their opposition into compliance.

A few weeks ago, TheCollegeConservative contributor, Bryana Johnson, wrote an article examining the rapid pace at which homosexual activists are progressing in order to shove their acceptance agenda down the throats of every American.  In the article, Johnson highlights the Quebec government’s recently launched registry aimed to track “homophobia.”  Any time a citizen overhears anything negative about homosexuality, they “must” report them to the registry; the reports will then be analyzed by the police.

This is nothing new, though, as Canada has been headed down this road for quite some time.  Some may recall that in 2008, a Christian pastor, Stephen Boisson, was criminally punished for expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality.  He was not only banned from speaking out against homosexuality, he was also ordered to pay a fine of $5,000 in “damages for pain and suffering.”  In addition, he was forced to apologize to the activist responsible for taking legal action against him.

Unfortunately, it is already painfully obvious that we are headed down the same road.  And since it’s nearly impossible to compile a list of every incident where homosexual activists have succeeded in bullying their opposition, I will stick to a few recent incidents.

Brad Pitt’s mother recently made national headlines when she wrote a letter to a Missouri editor encouraging voters to support Romney in order to defeat President Obama in November.  Here is an excerpt of Jane Pitt’s letter:

“Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney’s opponent, Barack Hussein Obama—a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage.”

The only thing that really seemed to catch the media’s attention is the fact that Jane Pitt opposes same-sex marriage.  For days, the media hyped it up and she is now fearing for her life after receiving countless death threats.

Two years ago, Jennifer Keeton was expelled from Augusta State University for vocalizing her opposition on homosexuality, both inside the classroom and outside the classroom.  Keeton filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the university, and just recently, the judge ruled in the university’s favor; hence her expulsion.

The Blaze reported on this story a few weeks back, but many of the readers were left wondering if she was removed from the program because she refused to counsel homosexual students.  I too felt that it was a little unclear, so I looked into it further.  According to the Student Press Law Center, Keeton was not removed from the program because she refused to counsel homosexuals; she was removed because she expressed views on homosexuality that her peers and instructors weren’t particularly fond of: “The faculty was concerned Keeton’s strong beliefs could interfere with her ability to become an effective practitioner.”  Keeton did not refuse to do an assignment, nor she did not refuse to counsel homosexuals; she did, however, refuse to condone the homosexual lifestyle.  Just as LBGT supporters are vocal about their support, Keeton is vocal about her opposition.  They did not expel her immediately, though.  She was put on probation and had to go through a remediation plan.  The remediation plan consisted of sensitivity training, writing papers about tolerance (because, obviously, this school knows all about tolerance), and attending gay pride events.  I can’t blame her for rejecting the brainwashing — I mean — remediation plan.

The school did not have a right to penalize Keeton because she did not violate the school’s rules.  Augusta State University is not a private university; it’s a public university.  When this case went before the federal district court, Judge James Randall Hall, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2007, should have ruled in Keeton’s favor because her First Amendment rights were trampled.

Apparently, appeasement to homosexual activists trumps the Constitution, and those who do not comply pay the consequences.
Atarah Golden | Cecil College | @AtarahGolden

Related News

71 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Chess
    Jul 20, 2012 - 07:48 AM

    This is just another revolution that our nation is going through. This too shall pass. It is sad to think that someone is punished for expressing his/her views. Just as sad as humans being denied their basic rights. I’m not against freedom of speech. Not at all. We are all entitled to our opinions and to think that Jennifer Keeton was expelled simply because she expressed her views is a huge step backwards for everyone. I don’t know if LBGT activists are all this extreme, and I certainly don’t think that they all ‘force’ their views on everyone else. Yes, there are some that do, but there are some conservatives that do the same. I see that some of the leaders in the LBGT movement have been fighting for their rights for years and years and are getting desperate. I hope that gay marriage will be legalized soon, it is not fair to deny people their rights simply because, in the eyes of a religion, it is viewed as sinful. At the end of the day, our government is by the people for the people. Religion need not be involved. For the good of the people.

    Reply
    • clownlucky
      Aug 13, 2012 - 08:12 PM

      It’s a far cry from what the Democratic party used to be about and it was by the people, for the people.

      Reply
  2. messup
    Jul 17, 2012 - 05:09 PM

    Gay Movement is a revolutionary movement. Has absolutely nothing to do with an individual and their “beingness.” If it did, i.e., have something to do with an individual’s “beingness,” then (A GAY) would recognize this “beingness” as being “one with God.” Created in his image. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention “Gay” and “Rights.” Neither together, nor separately.

    Since Gay Movement’s origins had its epicenter at San Francisco’s corner of Haight and Ashbury(in the 60′s). AIDS/HIV were running rampant throughout the Gay community there. Death rate was almost triple the national average. At the same time Bill Ayers, his Weathermen component, Saul Alinsky and his gobbly-gook about ‘diametrical materialism a la american,’ was gearing up with the “Hell-No-We-Won’t-Go” anti Vietnam crowd. Enter Cloward-Piven and the cake was cooked and ready to serve.

    Gay Movement started (in San Francisco)as a cry for salvation. It was high-jacked by these far left movements for their objectives, destroy AMERICA. How does this make any sense, one asks? Well let’s think a bit: 1)religion is now under attack by all sides, Gay Movement AND New Left,2)education is also under attack from all sides (familiea are no longer responsible, the state is)a New Left mantra, 3)financial system is moving closer to a soviet style centralized, planned economy and finally (the piece d’resistance)4) capitalism is under frontal attack (government knows best – private sector knows nothing).

    So, if Gay movement can separate Judeo – Christian beliefs from everything AMERICAN (culturally and religiously) a secular, Constitutional America is now a secular Constitutionless society. Trouble is, as with revolutions past, groups and sectors of peoples ‘used’ for the communist’s ends will be “spit out as so much fodder” when ‘Mission Accomplished.” See, the Gay Movement is a tool in the hands of communists. Read history. Learn about Trotsky, Lenin, Chiang-Kai-Chek.

    A “Right” is political and legal. A marriage is both a legal (marriage certificate)”Religious ceremony” (bible based) compact. So, Gay Movement has to re-define both political-legal “Rights” as well as the religious Judeo-Christian bible compacts which they will (and have) attempt to do.

    If, Gay Movements objectives are to re-define both “Rights” and “Biblical” compacts (which the gay Movement has done)then the Gay Movement is a revolutionary movement, not much different than the far left’s and New Left’s objectives…they’re one and the same. Decimate Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    If this isn’t clear, (Gay Movement is a revolutionary movement, hi-jacked by the New Left)then God Bless America. She is definitely on life support. Amen.

    Reply
    • messup
      Jul 17, 2012 - 05:38 PM

      Correction to the above post:

      4th paragraph where it reads:(culturally and religiously) a secular, Constitutional America

      Correction: (culturally and religiously) a RELIGIOUS, Constitutional America

      Apologize for the error.

      Reply
  3. Chelle
    Jul 17, 2012 - 12:42 PM

    Its kind of funny how a commenter will lecture people on changing the law if they don’t like it but condemning women for trying to do just that because she’s a lesbian. Hyprocritical, yes?

    Also, ever notice that same individual is the only one talking about pedophilia? And yet never argues against straight marriage even though older men prey on little girls and some states already allow older men to marry girls under 18 if their parents ok it?

    Reply
  4. Jared Cowan
    Jul 17, 2012 - 06:20 AM

    Gay activists are hardly demanding anything especially intrusive at this point. Do we see any calls for an official homophobia registry? Is there a charge to force people to agree with homosexuality? No. Simply accommodating the basic desire of the homosexual community for equality in marriage and basic tolerance and fairness under the law is not inconveniencing the straight majority, myself included.

    Reply
  5. AaronLasker
    Jul 15, 2012 - 05:50 AM

    “I can’t blame her for rejecting the brainwashing — I mean — remediation plan.”
    Ding! Ding! Ding!
    Gay pride events don’t strike me as being a venue of tolerance. They are concerned with furthering an agenda to the exclusion of all that disagree.

    The article is right on the money about the way that the homosexual agenda has become a march for tolerance in lockstep with a relentless campaign of intolerance against religious people. It’s absolutely a Constitutional problem, as you’ve stated. Making homosexuality a civil rights has effectively enforced the abandonment of free speech. Why should we expand rights when they co-occur with the retraction of other rights?

    You were also really insightful to differentiate between bigotry and principled disapproval. Ms. Seeton is not prejudiced. She agreed to counsel homosexuals and treated them as human beings. Why should she also be expected to gratify actions that she did not condone?

    This reminds me of a law in California that prevents clergy from saying that homosexuality is voluntary. Whether it is or is not is besides the issue that state law cannot override a religious establishment from the free expression of its doctrine. California openly violates free speech and freedom of religion by upholding such a law.

    Reply
    • clownlucky
      Jul 16, 2012 - 05:01 AM

      See, that’s what people never take time to define. To them, disagreement is the definition of hate through and through. How many of these so-called tolerant people picked a dictionary and looked up the meaning of those two words?

      Reply
    • Chelle
      Jul 16, 2012 - 03:31 PM

      You realize that making gay marriage legal will not violate your right to marry a person of the opposite sex right? But making gay marriage illegal violates their rights to choose their partners.

      So who is steamrolling who?

      “This reminds me of a law in California that prevents clergy from saying that homosexuality is voluntary.”

      Link please? various google searches hasn’t returned anything to me.

      Reply
      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:22 AM

        But we can still disagree with the lifestyle. That’s what freedom is all about. If we go the way Canada has, we won’t be called the Land Of The Free, and it isn’t hate to tell a gay couple that marriage is between a man and a woman, Chelle.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:34 AM

        “But we can still disagree with the lifestyle”

        Please point out where I said you couldn’t disagree? All I’ve ever said was you do not have the rights to steamroll other people’s rights just because that person is different from you and you don’t like it.

        You realize gay marriage doesn’t violate your right to get married, correct?

      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 03:18 AM

        Yes, but like Atarah said there will be more and more the gay activists will demand we do to accomodate them.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:37 PM

        1) a law that does not violate your rights (because gay marriage does not violate your rights) is not comparable to a law that would violate your rights.
        2) many US states have legalized gay marriage laws. Its very telling that Atarah couldn’t find an example of gay activists demanding more and having to use a complete different country has an example. IE US vs a French-Candian providence is not comparable.
        3) a tabliod spotlighting a letter from a mother of a famous gay rights supporter that is opposing her son’s beliefs is not the same as a media witch hunt. You all are being way to paranoid.
        4) A school excerising its rights to determine the kind of students they have is probably the most American thing of all. They have rights just as Keeton does.

        So in conclusion, this article fails on every level because it did not prove its point. It had to use an example of a completely different country and then it goes on a tagent about what two individual companies did. It did not show any proof that American gay rights activists are moving towards restricting people’s rights to free speech, even after gay marriage is legalized on a state level.

      • Aaron Lasker
        Jul 22, 2012 - 04:10 AM

        There was not a single sentence in my response about whether gay people should be allowed to get married.

        But for the record, you utilize the word rights far too casually here, without any regard for its actual definition. Neither gay people nor straight people have a recognized right to choose their partners. There are numerous limits that are imposed on such choices. For instance, polygamy is illegal.

        4) A school excerising its rights to determine the kind of students they have is probably the most American thing of all. They have rights just as Keeton does.

        Public universities that receive federal funding must submit to American laws, and chief amongst them is the freedom of speech. Keeton’s rights here are being undermined perniciously.

      • Chelle
        Jul 23, 2012 - 01:09 PM

        Actually, you said this:

        “Why should we expand rights when they co-occur with the retraction of other rights?”

        Now, I would love for you to explain how gay marriage inpeds your rights, when marriage is the right they are looking to expand.

        Additionally, you seem confused. Just because there are limitations does not mean people do not have the right to choose their partners. They do – as long as they fit into the government’s limitations.

        Further, I’d love for you to find me a case of two consenting adults of opposing genders who’s marriage was opposed by the government. I suspect it’ll pop up once you find that link to the “California law.”

        “Public universities that receive federal funding must submit to American laws, and chief amongst them is the freedom of speech. Keeton’s rights here are being undermined perniciously.”

        First of all, every American, person, group or corporate, must submit to American laws. And what is exactly is that American law?

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        Now, I was not aware that public universities were the same thing as Congress, but whatever. You seem to think that organizations that receive tax credit scarifice their “right to free speech.”

        In which case I ask, how much money does it take? Relgious orgs recieve tax credit – does that mean an individual may go inside the church, start telling everyone there that Jesus sucks and the church has no authority to remove him? How about companies that took government bail out money – does that mean they are not allowed to fire an employee even if that employee is an awful fit?

        Further, I could maybe see if your point if this university was soley funded by the government. (Though you may want to read up on Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.) But its not. In state cost for a 15 hour semester? $2,811. Out of state cost for a 15 hour semester? $8,208. So yes, if a student is disruptive or impeding my kid’s ability to be properly educated – that he or I am paying for, then damn right I hope that problem is taken cared of. People’s rights do not overrule other people’s rights – wait, that actually sounds familier…

        “Why should we expand rights when they co-occur with the retraction of other rights?”

        Funny that.

        Anyways, Keeton’s rights were not affected. Congress is not invovled with this and she still has the ability to attend another school. Though I’m not sure what school would take her since she’s clearly made it known that she feels entitled to do whatever she wants and she’s above the school’s rights to govern their own program.

        Finally, I recommend you actually read the article that is linked, since Atarah was very “selective” about what she quoted.

        “The faculty was concerned Keeton’s strong beliefs could interfere with her ability to become an effective practitioner, as they conflicted with the professional ethical standards set forth by the American Counseling Association and the American School Counselor Association.

        “The appellate court held the counseling program to be a school-sponsored, nonpublic forum that is part of ASU’s curriculum. Thus, the court reasoned, students in the program are entitled only to the Hazelwood level of First Amendment protection – that is, administrators can regulate speech for any legitimate educational reason.

        “On Friday, the court threw out Keeton’s lawsuit, ruling that Keeton was aware of the conduct standards set by the counselor program and that she failed to prove those standards suppressed her free speech.

  6. Matthew
    Jul 14, 2012 - 08:06 PM

    Why is it whenever someone posts something negative about homosexuals and the homosexual agenda, the psychotic always come in here to defend it?

    You have a woman who thinks California state law should not apply to her because she is a lesbian: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1629528

    You have a convicted pedophile who is trying to keep a letter he wrote five years ago specifically for public consumption off the internet because it incriminates himself and others: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12c/Flanders_lawsuit/index.html

    And yet, people will defend it, as they will defend homosexuals and homosexuality NO MATTER WHAT. These people are completely psychotic and have no place in a civilized society.

    Reply
    • clownlucky
      Jul 16, 2012 - 04:58 AM

      Okay, define civilized for us.

      Reply
      • Matthew
        Jul 16, 2012 - 06:14 PM

        Civilized=moral, reasonable

        These people have shown themselves time and time again to be beyond morality and reason. They have indicated a full approval of pedophilia as well as the amoral aspects of the homosexual agenda (which is, well, all of it). They are the kind of people that, in the former part of my lifetime, would have been seen as a danger to others and involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

      • Matthew
        Jul 16, 2012 - 07:44 PM

        And, as luck would have it, someone was kind enough to provide an example:

        “Seriously, I can’t give over this. You attempting to imply that its perfectly acceptable for people to hate other people simply because that person is different from them.

        That is straight up insanity and just sums up why we should value the gay rights opinion over the people trying to keep it down. Because the people trying to keep these rights away? Can be summed as “I don’t like you.”

        Tough shit people. Welcome to society, people are different from each other. If you want to live in a country where you benefit from many freedoms, you need to accept that other people who have different lifestyles live there too. In the end, we’re all taxpayers and that’s all that matters.”

      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:33 AM

        People, and I’ve said this dozens of times, can not tell the difference between hate and disagreement, and, yes, that came off an article on this site that I wholeheartedly agree with.

      • Matthew
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:50 PM

        It came from this very story. Those words were written by Chelle, a certifiable lunatic.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 04:46 PM

        Yes, its completely insane to think our government has better things to do than create laws based on your hate of gays. /rolls eyes.

        No one here has yet to explain how gay marriage violates their rights.

        Then again, its obvious that Matthew can’t, hence why he didn’t respond to my post directly. Hint Matthew: By posting my comment, you are engaging, which you’ve repeatly said you won’t. Weren’t you the one who said if you keep repeating the same actions that’s insanity? Well dear, I can’t think of anymore more insane then obessing over a stranger on the internet.

      • Matthew
        Jul 18, 2012 - 04:41 PM

        Go to hell, Chelle. I am not talking to you.

      • Chelle
        Jul 18, 2012 - 06:05 PM

        No, just about me and falsely.

        You realize how commenting systems work right?

        Listen dude, if you comment about me, quote my comments, generally talk me about me, I will respond. If you have an issue with that, I suggest you stop doing that.

        But no, you want to be able to talk shit about me and then not have to answer.

        What a coward.

    • Chelle
      Jul 19, 2012 - 12:57 AM

      And in regards to your initial comment…

      In sum, Matthew says

      “I can’t argue anything in this article, so here are two completely unrelated links, to the original article and to each other, one of which that talks about how a woman’s right is being violated, with oddly enough is what Atarah is objecting to in her piece. I will now accuse people of supporting pedophilia even though I’m the one who brought it up and no one on this site has said anything to support it.”

      Reply
  7. Matthew
    Jul 14, 2012 - 12:18 PM

    Why is it whenever someone posts something negative about homosexuals and the homosexual agenda, the psychotic always come in here to defend it?

    You have a woman who thinks California state law should not apply to her because she is a lesbian: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1629528

    You have a convicted pedophile who is trying to keep a letter he wrote five years ago specifically for public consumption off the internet because it incriminates himself and others: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen2/12c/Flanders_lawsuit/index.html

    And yet, people will defend it, as they will defend homosexuals and homosexuality NO MATTER WHAT. These people are completely psychotic and have no place in a civilized society.

    Reply
    • Jared Cowan
      Jul 17, 2012 - 06:44 AM

      No matter what? Are you nuts? Homosexual rape is as bad as heterosexual rape. I treat them with the same disgust, because it is violating someone’s basic right to be secure in their person. Homosexuals abusing children is not cool. It is the results of an act that reflect a good deal of the ethical considerations we make upon something. Any future speculation about the crumbling of society is just attempts to make a mountain out of a molehill. If it is not immediately damaging, I do not see the concern with two adults consenting to be in a relationship, romantic, sexual or otherwise intimate. This is not economic policy, this is social.

      Reply
      • Matthew
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:52 PM

        Stop lying, Jared. The defenders I was referring to are you and Chelle. The day I stop calling you a pedophile defender will be the day when you stop defending pedophiles.

        Now leave me the hell alone.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 04:47 PM

        LOL “leave me alone even though I’m the one engaging you with comments.”

      • Jared Cowan
        Jul 17, 2012 - 09:37 PM

        Where have I defended a pedophile? I won’t take this insinuation about what I defend sitting down. You have no proof and are grasping at straws to justify this ridiculous position.

      • Matthew
        Jul 18, 2012 - 04:38 PM

        How many times have I told you to not talk to me?

        The fact is and remains you have indeed defended the sexual abuse of children by homosexuals. You may have allegedly forgotten, but I have not.

        Homosexuals think of children as little more than disposable toys. (Look at the push they are giving to get into the BSA. There is only one reason they want in so badly.) Anyone who agrees with or would knowingly defend that way of thinking is a turd in need of being flushed.

        I am going to say this one last time, making it abundantly clear. Seeing you and Chelle here just p*sses me off. I can’t tell you to leave and never come back, but I can absolutely tell you to leave me alone, to not talk to me ever again. You disgust me beyond words.

      • Chelle
        Jul 18, 2012 - 06:09 PM

        Here’s an idea: Why don’t you go start your own blog were you shout your stupid arguments all you want and close your commenting system?

        “but I can absolutely tell you to leave me alone, to not talk to me ever again.”

        Um no, you can’t. See that reply button? You know what that’s for right?

        This is the only why you can get people to not comment on your comments: don’t post your comments.

      • Jared Cowan
        Jul 18, 2012 - 09:10 PM

        I’ll talk to you if I damn well please. You’re provoking me in such a way that it is almost compulsory for me to respond.

        But I should probably heed your request, because any attention I give you is jut stoking the flames of hatred and anger you are kindling with every post against so called “liberals” that post on this site.

        It’s far better for me, Chelle and anyone else who has any remote amount of sense in their heads to ignore you, like Westboro Baptist Church, and let you stew in your own poison, eating away at you from inside.

        If you can’t see how self destructive and asinine your behavior and speech is, I don’t think we can help you by talking, since you’ve already closed yourself off.

  8. Danny
    Jul 14, 2012 - 05:34 AM

    We see a new Orthodoxy budding. Not one based on moral law but rather on social justice and whatever that might mean or come to mean. “Orthodoxies” are unwavering things so be prepared to hold your tongue or pay the price.

    Reply
    • Jared Cowan
      Jul 14, 2012 - 04:13 PM

      Orthodoxy is not technically unwavering by its very definition, since it isn’t making a claim to absolute truth, but correctness. Truth is implied, but I honestly don’t think everyone takes orthodoxy the same way, especially with religious diversity in America as it is. Orthodoxy is usually particular to a group and outside groups aren’t constrained by it.

      And it’s a teaching, which means there is a formal sense of its transmission, which isn’t necessarily here. Do we have a formulation of this new orthodoxy you speak of?

      Reply
  9. Chelle
    Jul 13, 2012 - 04:24 PM

    “The only thing that really seemed to catch the media’s attention is the fact that Jane Pitt opposes same-sex marriage.”

    Yea, had nothing to do with the fact that she’s Brad Pitt’s mom and they hold extremely different views on the subject.

    No, the media just hunts down anyone who opposes same-sex marriage and exposes them.

    Also, I wonder the effectiveness of someone counseling a gay person when they don’t approve of that lifestyle. I’m guessing zero. Sorry, closed minded people do not make good counslers.

    And regardless if the school is private or not, they most likely have the right to dismiss whomever they want from their programs. If Keaton’s objections were dsrupting class, then yes, they could dimiss her. Frankly, if she’s announcing her objections, I’m not sure how that would translate to “she vocally disapproves of it during inapporiate times but is totally willing set it aside to cousnel people.”

    Reply
    • Nicole
      Jul 13, 2012 - 11:54 PM

      The media hunts down anyone who opposes the defilement of marriage and “exposes” them? So now it’s a crime to have an opinion that differs from the homosex mafia?

      Reply
      • clownlucky
        Jul 16, 2012 - 04:52 AM

        Apparently, Chelle sums it up as, if you have beliefs contrary to what people in mainstream society have accepted, you deserve to be hunted down like an animal and put to death. Nice job revealing your totalitarian ways, Chelle, but we’re living in America, not communist Russia.

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:27 PM

        You need to learn to read Clown, this is what I said:

        From the article: “The only thing that really seemed to catch the media’s attention is the fact that Jane Pitt opposes same-sex marriage.”

        Me: “Yea, had nothing to do with the fact that she’s Brad Pitt’s mom and they hold extremely different views on the subject.

        No, the media just hunts down anyone who opposes same-sex marriage and exposes them.”

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 03:35 PM

        Also, I have to laugh at your comment:

        “if you have beliefs contrary to what people in mainstream society have accepted”

        So you admitt that anti-gay marriage is a fringe thing? So why are the arguing against it if the majority want it?

        “you deserve to be hunted down like an animal and put to death.”

        Way to make yourself look stupid with a massive hyperbole.

        You’re a troll aren’t you? You’ve never added anything to a discussion on this site and grossly missinterpet people’s comments to the point where its obivious that you didn’t even read them.

      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:15 AM

        Like we care what mainstream society thinks is acceptable, Chelle, and laugh all you want, but we will not be bullied into silence by a bunch of PC monkeys.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:28 AM

        No one is bullying you into silence dude.

        Keeton has the right to say what she wants, her school has the right to say she doesn’t belong in their program. She is not entitled to stay in that program, just like people are not entitled to no consequences for what they say.

        Free speech protects your right to say what you please. It also protects the rights of people responding in opposing opinion to what you say.

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:27 PM

        You need to learn to read Nicole, this is what I said:

        From the article: “The only thing that really seemed to catch the media’s attention is the fact that Jane Pitt opposes same-sex marriage.”

        Me: “Yea, had nothing to do with the fact that she’s Brad Pitt’s mom and they hold extremely different views on the subject.

        No, the media just hunts down anyone who opposes same-sex marriage and exposes them.”

        You see where I pointed out that magazine only cared because it’s BRAD PITT’s MOM???

      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:30 AM

        Nicole, just ignore Chelle.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:28 AM

        Says the guy who’s commented how many times?

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:30 PM

        Seriously, you both lose points in your arguments here because at no point did I say it was acceptable for the media to hunt down opposing viewpoints. All I said was the media cares about this story because (and I quote myself again) “she’s Brad Pitt’s mom and they hold extremely different views on the subject.”

        Seriously, you people need to get over yourselfs. No one cares if you’re sitting at home and spewing your hate. Its when you try to impact the rights of others that the public finds it to be unacceptable.

      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:16 AM

        And it’s easy for cowardly No H8 supporters to tell people to kill themselves, and you’re no better, Chelle, with the foul language.

      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:35 AM

        Didn’t curse once today but thanks for not reading!

        By the way, how many gay teens have killed themselves because people “disagree” aka torment them for their lifestyles?

    • Nicole
      Jul 13, 2012 - 11:59 PM

      Many people who suffer with same-sex attractions are looking for real help on how to control their sex addiction. Can you imagine if the only “counsel” allowed to alcoholics was “that’s how you were born, go ahead and indulge yourself and be proud!”

      Reply
      • Chelle
        Jul 17, 2012 - 02:31 AM

        Then prehaps Keeton can find a program that torelates her viewpoints and “helps” them through that.

        She’s not entitled to stay in that program, you realize that right?

    • Sean L
      Jul 14, 2012 - 02:45 AM

      Chelle, same sex attraction is absolutely distinct from lifestyle. You don’t HAVE to sex to know if you are attracted to somebody. And being gay IS distinct from the gay lifestyle. I do not know if you are aware of this, but there is a growing number of homosexual men who are abandoning the “gay” label and community and adopting the identity of “androphile,” because they feel that the prevalent gay persona of stylish and caddy is disingenuous to their inherit masculinity.

      A big reason why gays are so disliked by some people is because of their apparent rejection of masculinity, either through acting effeminate and dressing in drag, or through the exaggerated “macho drag” of the bear and leather community. I bet many young men have internalized homophobia because the media and the gay community do such a good job of portraying the affectations and mannerisms that are all too familiar as the norm, and even mandatory.

      I think Jack Malebranche put it best: “Gay diversity is like the Village People. You can all wear different stupid outfits as long as you sing the same stupid song.”

      Reply
      • Jared Cowan
        Jul 14, 2012 - 05:25 AM

        Problem exists with the campy stereotypes of gay people more than anything else, which I could understand as a reason, even if it’s a bit nitpicky and semantical in terms of saying you are attracted to the same sex, regardless of if you act on it or not.

        Drag doesn’t necessarily imply homosexuality at all. I’ve done crossplay, which is technically distinct from drag in that drag is meant to either be ambiguous or just thumb your nose at gender stereotypes. Crossplay is meant to pass in a sense, which means it’s closer to crossdressing, which most definitely isn’t a homosexual stereotype. From what I understand, it’s fairly common amongst the heterosexual community.

        I have to wonder what you mean by a gay lifestyle? It’s not like there’s some singular expectation of what all gays are supposed to do. Not every gay uses the rainbow as their symbol. Some who are older or more classical try the pink triangle, for instance.

        A lot of homophobia seems to be rooted not directly with the stereotypes, but how seriously people take them, which is also related to the identification label of androphile as an alternative to gay, which was historically appropriated by a particular segment of the homosexual community, similar to a more modern example with the word queer.

      • Chelle
        Jul 15, 2012 - 03:41 AM

        “Chelle, same sex attraction is absolutely distinct from lifestyle. You don’t HAVE to sex to know if you are attracted to somebody. And being gay IS distinct from the gay lifestyle.”

        How is this lecture revalant? From the article linked:

        “Keeton was vocal about her beliefs inside and outside the classroom, and said she would not “condone the propriety of homosexual relations or a homosexual identity in a counseling situation,””

        So this is not a case of Keeton just having a problem with the gay lifestyle – she has problems with the very existance of your attarction to other men Sean L.

        I do not know if you are aware of this, but there is a growing number of homosexual men who are abandoning the “gay” label and community and adopting the identity of “androphile,” because they feel that the prevalent gay persona of stylish and caddy is disingenuous to their inherit masculinity.

        “A big reason why gays are so disliked by some people is because of their apparent rejection of masculinity, either through acting effeminate and dressing in drag, or through the exaggerated “macho drag” of the bear and leather community. I bet many young men have internalized homophobia because the media and the gay community do such a good job of portraying the affectations and mannerisms that are all too familiar as the norm, and even mandatory. ”

        Your point? I was not aware that people acting how they want to act offects people personally, espically in the case of being gay. So what if a gay wants to act more feminine and so what if a gay wants to protray himself as a sterotye? Its none’s business.

        And I’m not sure how you staying this is suppose to make someone think “Oh man, these gays rights are over the top.” You just stated that some people have issues with strangers they might run into once living a gender norm that isn’t traditionally assigned to their sex.

        And by the way, what does the second paragarph of your comment have to do with mine? At no one point did I debate why people wouldn’t like the gay lifestyle. There are a lot of sad negative people who are inscure in their own lives and take it out minority groups – so I understand why they hates gays.

        Further, just because you happen to be open and out does not mean you’re the only gay person commenting or the only one with any insight to the gay culture.

      • Chelle
        Jul 15, 2012 - 01:54 PM

        Seriously, I can’t give over this. You attempting to imply that its perfectly acceptable for people to hate other people simply because that person is different from them.

        That is straight up insanity and just sums up why we should value the gay rights opinion over the people trying to keep it down. Because the people trying to keep these rights away? Can be summed as “I don’t like you.”

        Tough shit people. Welcome to society, people are different from each other. If you want to live in a country where you benefit from many freedoms, you need to accept that other people who have different lifestyles live there too. In the end, we’re all taxpayers and that’s all that matters.

      • clownlucky
        Jul 16, 2012 - 04:57 AM

        Well, the last time I checked people were free to have different opinions. Yes, we know we’re a diverse nation, but there’s a dark side to that as well. One is favored above others, and that’s hardly the definition of being equal. If you want equality, stop putting one idealogy on a pedestal.

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:33 PM

        No one said that you weren’t entitled to your own opinion. What I said was that its ridiculous that people think they can interfer with other people’s rights just because they don’t like that person.

        “One is favored above others, and that’s hardly the definition of being equal. If you want equality, stop putting one idealogy on a pedestal.”

        Anti-gay marriage people keep saying this and it just makes me laugh. You really can’t see the irony can you? This statement would only have a place if the argument was “gay marriage for all.” That’s not the arguement. The argument is people should be able to marry their consenting partner, regardless of gender. How its not “equaility” in your eyes to allow everyone to have that choice for themselves, I’ll never understand.

        Basically Clown, you want the right to have your idealogy aka opinion based on who knows what to over rule the rights of complete strangers.

      • Jared Cowan
        Jul 16, 2012 - 08:47 PM

        That’s something the founding fathers and even Tocqueville, a Frenchman who admired America, warned against, the tyranny of the majority. That dark side is not something we should just accept, but strive to prove otherwise. We are a tolerant nation in that we welcome those that are different and don’t persecute them if we happen to be in the majority

  10. Sean L
    Jul 13, 2012 - 02:11 PM

    Thanks, Atarah, for exposing the hypocrisy of the gay left. It and its spokespeople scream that they must be accepted, but the minute somebody says, “I just don’t like your lifestyle,” they respond with the very hate and obscenities that they claim to oppose. Dan Savage recently referred to gay conservatives (like myself) who support Romney as “ankle grabbers” and “house f***s.” And the Huffington Post defended him for “taking back” that slur.

    That’s the difference between gay liberals and gay conservatives. The former demand unconditional acceptance of their lifestyle, like they feel some innate guilt about it and want to be consoled; they will vehemently oppose that claim, but it’s the truth. Gay conservatives, on the other hand, are far more flexible: some have the position that their personal desires take a bake seat to issues of universal national importance; others say that they don’t want/need state recognition, just benefits like hospital visitation rights and financial stuff. I encourage people to visit the blogs Gay Patriot and Gay Conservative to see for themselves.

    On a personal note, could somebody on this site please do an article on Dan Savage? More people deserve to know him for the vile and juvenile hypocrite he is.

    Reply
    • Jared Cowan
      Jul 13, 2012 - 09:43 PM

      If you don’t like them being gay, it’s not disliking a lifestyle. The fact that it’s constantly and mistakenly referred to as such is missing the point. Being straight isn’t a lifestyle choice, I’m pretty sure you’d agree with that. So why is being gay or bisexual or even asexual suddenly a lifestyle choice? Because you think straight is the default? Even if it is, it doesn’t mean the others are just rebelling against that to be contrarian.

      Dan Savage is one example. Do you have more than that to support the claim of hypocritical gay liberals?

      It’s one thing to be negative all the time, but when you are spreading misinformation, it is not unjustified to be a bit frustrated and blame those who are spreading these falsehoods about gay people. Of course, it’s wrong to attack the individual, but I have every right to call beliefs idiotic if they are false, regardless of who says them. They can be respected as a person, but not the asinine convictions they hold about gay people that are reprehensible at times.

      Just because they want basic equality doesn’t mean they demand unconditional acceptance. Tolerance is what they strive for, albeit that can be taken too far at times. The difficulty is distinguishing between discrimination and civil disagreement.

      I’m pretty sure they have done an article on Dan Savage, at least once. Article is called “It Gets Better…Unless You Disagree With Dan Savage”

      Reply
    • Chelle
      Jul 13, 2012 - 10:22 PM

      1) Just because some gays want the right to get married doesn’t mean they are interested in forcing people to like them. Asking that their lifestyles be legally respected – as taxpayers no less – is not the same as saying that everyone just accept their lifestyles. Conservatives, gay or straight, seem to confuse this.
      2) Your most hard core conservative groups are fighting hard to give no rights to gays. Actually, lack of rights to gays is pretty common for any conservative.
      3) This site has done an article on Dan Savage.

      Reply
      • Nicole
        Jul 13, 2012 - 11:25 PM

        Those who engage in sodomy already have the freedom to marry, they just have to follow the same rules as everyone else – find a suitable partner of the opposite sex, of a distant biological relation, and 18 years of age or older.

      • Nicole
        Jul 14, 2012 - 12:06 AM

        . . . much to the chagrin of homosexuals, pedophiles, and the incestuous everywhere.

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:25 PM

        First of all, no, they do not have the freedom to marry their partner, that they love. Second of all, some states do allow marriages between first cousins. Third of all, some states drop the age of marriage to under 18. Fourth of all, suitable partner? Since when is the government determining who is suitable?

        There are many states where gay marriage is legal. And I don’t see fire and brim stone, do you? Your agruments are what anti-irracial marriage supporters used once upon a time. You realize that right?

      • Nicole
        Jul 13, 2012 - 11:26 PM

        You cannot legally force others to respect or esteem another. Respect is something that is earned and not demanded. Not all behavior is equally respectable.

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:17 PM

        …which has nothing to do with what I said, thanks!

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:22 PM

        …which has nothing to do with my comment, thanks for reading!

      • Nicole
        Jul 13, 2012 - 11:50 PM

        There are no rights that that are being denied those who engage in sodomy. You defend sodomy on the basis of demanding “rights” when in fact what you are really demanding is the right to pleasure yourself in anyway you feel and demand others applaud your indulgences and pretend it’s not a crime against nature. The right to force others to approve of sodomy is not guaranteed in any constitution.

      • Chelle
        Jul 16, 2012 - 01:21 PM

        Except for the right to marry their partner,

        Sodomy is not a crime against nature – and if it was, US law wouldn’t have cared. Monogamy is a crime against nature – it goes against animal insincts. But I don’t see you arguing that.

        Like every other anti-gay marriage supporter, you’re just picking and choosing. Sodomy is not a crime and in the eyes of the law, marriage is just a contract between two people. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. Its only when you bring religion up in this argument is when you can start debating if gay marriage is right or wrong. Fortunately, US law – the law we’re taking about – is forbinned from making laws based on religious beliefs. Its called “The First Admendment.”

      • clownlucky
        Jul 17, 2012 - 12:28 AM

        I spy with my little eyes some spelling mistakes, Chelle.

      • Jared Cowan
        Jul 16, 2012 - 08:39 PM

        First off, no one is asking for rights to have homosexual or anal sex. Sodomy is an antiquated term only used by religionists who think that it only applies to homosexuals. The term can cover a wider range of sexual activities than that: as far as bestiality and even oral sex in some contexts of its usage.

        I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t think that oral sex was a sin in any sense. Anal sex isn’t just a homosexual thing and bestiality is ethically problematic for reasons we could agree about apart from the Bible’s prohibition of it.

        Crimes against nature are a bit more subjective, especially if we think of nature in a more objective sense than our own human perspective where it’s anything that isn’t within our traditions, which have varied over the last few millennia.

        Again, no one is asking to be approved in terms of their sexual activities so much as merely being able to say they love another consenting adult, regardless of if they are the same sex, and have the basic right to marry them and have the associated rights that come with it. Straight people aren’t asking to have the government approve of their bedroom activities any more than gay people are asking for that now. Marriage and sex overlap, but are not the same in terms of legal rights.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. College Student Expelled For Speaking Out About Gay Marriage & More Injustices | The David Madeira Show

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter