By HFP Reporter on Saturday, November 14th, 2009 |
I read a very interesting article on Fox News' website that I hope doesn't become a trend. A Massachusetts man who is a devout Christian was confronted by a gay coworker who had just married her partner. Wanting social approval from this Christian, the gay coworker pressed him several times to comment on her recent marriage. The Christian man finally expressed his opinion saying he thought that gay relationships go against the teaching of the Bible and God’s design. For this comment, the man was accused of harassment and was fired.
After reading the article, it reminded me of Lincoln’s comment on what proponents of slavery wanted from those who disagreed with them. Lincoln said, “...reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance — (Cooper Union on February 27th, 1860). In essence, the pro-slavery advocates wanted their position to be acknowledged as correct and the anti-slavery advocates to say they were wrong.
It would seem that groups who raise their fist to Universal Law will aggressively pressure others to agree with them.
Click here for the article on Fox News' website
Dean Brankle posted on November 15th, 2009 @ 20:39:26
Political correctness may be the most dangerous thing in this country and people need to wake up to the fact and start acting to countrer the "PC" nuts.
Want to get really scared? Read the book "Stealth Jihad" by Robert Spencer and find out just where political correctness is going in this country.
Marty Everts posted on November 16th, 2009 @ 15:58:20
This kind of homophobic crap is one reason I left this narrow-minded state.
Fox is not news!
WW2MarineVeteran posted on November 17th, 2009 @ 20:36:39
Today, I saw the movie 2012. It was a portrayal of the last days - the end of our world as we know it. Since the end of WW2 I have watched my beloved country going down, down, and further down. This article is an example of the bad changes I have watched since the end of WW2. I thought when I was fighting for my country that I was doing something worth while. This article is an example of why I question my reasons for fighting an enemy of our United States. I am beginning to believe we are near the end.
TS posted on November 17th, 2009 @ 22:52:57
Good article Jeff,
I think it is most unfortunate that this mam was fired. i am sure that the aclu is proud. They are so blind to the fact that they are literally DESTROYING this country
Wrong again! posted on November 29th, 2009 @ 18:40:52
If the incident was as you characterize in your synopsis, I would agree with you. However, if you actually watch interviews with the individual he describes the situation as his co-worker simply mentioning their partner. It was not as if his co-worker was hounding him. Rather it was statements more like, "I went to the movie this weekend with my partner." You make it sound like the co-work would walk up and say "hey man, I'm really gay and like to make love to my same-sex partner, how do you feel about that?"
The man was not asked for his opinion on homosexuality. He simply felt compelled to let the co-worker know his feelings, and he shared them.
I agree that arbitrary PC can be an issue, but it seems every time Fox News or any other conservative wines about PC destroying our country, it's a complete misrepresentation of actual events in some random anecdote. Sort of like how conservatives misrepresent and blatantly lie about healthcare reform to make their base think the country is in crisis.
Haha posted on November 29th, 2009 @ 18:47:49
"If I criticize a black man, I am a racist. If I criticize a gay person, I am a homophobe. Can you explain to me how being gay follows Universal Law? It looks to me that nature pairs up male and female. If someone wants to go against nature, that is their prerogative, but do not force your opinion on the rest of us via name calling and the court system."
No. No. You're not criticizing, you're misrepresenting a situation to make the man who was fired look less bigoted. Perhaps you should think of it as a man who happens to be black, or happens to be gay. Instead of defining the individual as a black man.
Universal law? Why does my male dog hump other male dogs? Do I need to quote the Bible to him more often? Give me a freaking break.
No one if forcing an opinion on you, they're just calling out bigoted idiots who spew bigoted ignorant garbage.
Jeff Hoover posted on November 29th, 2009 @ 21:02:07
When I read the article on Fox News, I found it interesting but obliviously one sided. It would have been nice to have heard both sides of the story.
When it comes to the dog, was he successful in propagating the species? If so, that would be a great story. Please send it in! Sex, though enjoyable, is for producing offspring. It is a Yin Yang kind of thing. That is Universal law!
When it comes to forcing the homosexual lifestyle on society, the homosexual movement has been trying to legalize gay marriage in many states unsuccessfully via the ballot box so they have turned to the courts to force the people to comply such as in Massachusetts. If that is not forcing it on to society, what is it?
By the way, 'HaHa' thanks for calling me a bigot instead of a homophobe. I think we are making progress!
Haha posted on November 29th, 2009 @ 23:46:17
Jeff, thank you for the response.
--"When I read the article on Fox News, I found it interesting but obliviously one sided. It would have been nice to have heard both sides of the story. "
Then perhaps you should've sought out the other side of the story before you sided with the man who was fired.
--"When it comes to the dog, was he successful in propagating the species? If so, that would be a great story. Please send it in!"
No he wasn't successful, he does put forth a good effort though :) Anyway, my point was that heterosexuality is not some universal law that all of nature's creatures follow, animals or humans (we are also animals by the way). Rather, it's something most complex organisms follow, due to natural selection, to pass on their genes. However, not every organelle of any species follows every natural-selection induced behavior. And I for one, think judging and punishing individuals who happen to be homosexual (whether genetic or by choice) is wrong.
--"Sex, though enjoyable, is for producing offspring. It is a Yin Yang kind of thing. That is Universal law!"
You can't just exclaim something as universal law. You're universal law seems to imply that birth control should be illegal. Women past menopause should not be allowed to have sex. Et cetera. I also find it interesting that you're introducing eastern religious concepts now...
--"When it comes to forcing the homosexual lifestyle on society, the homosexual movement has been trying to legalize gay marriage in many states unsuccessfully via the ballot box so they have turned to the courts to force the people to comply such as in Massachusetts. If that is not forcing it on to society, what is it?"
I agree they're trying to legalize gay marriage. The only reason they've been unsuccessful at ballots is because of conservative religious ignoramuses, mainly organized by the Mormon and Catholic churches. Fortunately the trend line points to a society that is becoming more and more accepting of homosexuals. But until then, I see nothing wrong with going to the courts to gain recognition of your rights as an American.
Let's be honest, the resistance to gay marriage is rooted almost solely in religion. There is no scientific evidence in any field, with the most important probably being psychology, that shows gay marriage causing negative consequences, even when raising children. What negative consequences will society face as a result of gay marriage, that it doesn't already experience with heterosexual marriage (I refuse to call this traditional marriage since it'd be historically inaccurate)?
adamandevenotadamandsteve posted on November 30th, 2009 @ 02:20:15
Actually, the report I read, explained that the woman continually made comments that she knew would provoke the guy. She knew his thoughts on the matter, yet, continued to make remarks. Sure seems like she was seeking a comfrontation to me.
There have been liberals media members come out in support of FOX. At least, FOX has liberal hosts on some of its shows. How many conservatives have their own shows on the other channels.
MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc, are all liberal. Yet, liberals get so work up over one channel. FOX is far from perfect. But, anyone who thinks the other channels are perfect is nuts.
Male dogs will hump another male dog in an attempt to show dominance. What's the relevance?
The only way it matters, why they are doing it, is if you believe in evolution. Which really does not help your cause. Not that justifying human behavior by aligning it with animal behavior should ever justify your point.
Male dolphins, which are mammals, will commonly band together and take turns chasing and harassing female dolphins that are refusing to mate. They continue doing this until the female dolphins are exhausted and can not continue. They then forcibly mate with the female.
Does this mean gang rapes by humans should be justified because dophins do it? If you use animals to justify one activity, it can be used in all accounts.
Perhaps, it would be easier to look at a person as someone who happens to be gay or happens to be black, if the race and orientation cards were not so commonly played.
I, once, wrote a letter to the Editor, which complained about the homosexual community's lack of uproar concerning the activities of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association).
Among other things, they encourage removal of all age based sexual consent laws, encourage intercourse by the age of 8 and a few things I don't feel like writing here.
In response, I got one letter in which the author seemed intent on repeatedly telling me she had never heard of NAMBLA, and not much more.
One other letter called me a hate mongering bigpt, who was a prime example of the danger homosexuals face every day.
Those were the civil letters. Not a single one condemned NAMBLA. Not a single on cited any place where I mentioned homos should be shot or thrown in jail or where I said how much I hated them. Why? Because I didn't write any such thing.
Regardless of how I may or may not feel, I didn't write it. Yet, because I spoke out against a homsexual organization I was automatically branded any number of things.
Look at the recent Adam Lambert controversy. I wrote my thoughts on it, in a chat room. I did not mention his orientation, just that I thought that type of activity had no place on tv.
Immediately I wa labled the same things as in the letters. I repeatedly said, I did not care if it was male or a female or if it was straight or homsecual activity. Yet, no one listened.
The same thing happens with race and faith.
I guarantee, if I had remarked about how I was not in support of gay marriage, in front of a co worker I knew was gay, and that co worker had responded like the guy in this case, I would be the one who got fired or sent to sensitivity training.
By the way, if hetrosexuality is something species do to pass on their gense, through natural selection, aren't you saying that homosexuality is a non, or at least, less desirable genetic trait?
Natural selection weeds out the weak and undesirable traits. At the very least, you are saying only those species who have the desireable traits follow natural selection.
What does it tell you when a person, soley because of their sexuality, is unable to reproduce, naturally? It tells me, whatever the cause behond the occurence of human life and our very existence doesn't want us to be gay.
Haha posted on November 30th, 2009 @ 09:20:17
--"There have been liberals media members come out in support of FOX. At least, FOX has liberal hosts on some of its shows. How many conservatives have their own shows on the other channels."
Yes Fox has liberals on staff. But take Hannity and Colmes for example. That was essentially a pathetic setup, where Hannity completely dominated Colmes. That was not balance.
--"MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc, are all liberal. Yet, liberals get so work up over one channel. FOX is far from perfect. But, anyone who thinks the other channels are perfect is nuts."
That's pretty general. Do you watch them all, for several hours every day? Or did Fox tell you that as well? MSNBC definitely has a liberal bias, CNN not so much. But that's just my opinion, I don't really spend a ton of time watching cable "news." If that's where you get your facts, you're really missing a lot.
In addition, I should point out that the "liberal" news channels may show a bias, but they don't blatantly lie as Fox news does. For example, just look at the recent Hannity footage of the "Bachmann" rally. Perhaps it was a mistake, but Fox news has made a lot of mistakes that really pump up these poorly attended and supported conservative rallies.
--"Male dogs will hump another male dog in an attempt to show dominance. What's the relevance?"
Really? Did you ask the dog? Looks to me more like our little idiot is either confused, or gay (since his confusion is pretty much 100% consistent) ;) But thanks for letting me know my own dog's motivations.
The relevance is that Hoover is trying to lay claim to universal laws that don't exist. This often leads to the "homosexuality isn't natural so it's wrong" argument. I was pointing out that even in just my limited experience with raising dogs, they can also be quite gay, or at least appear so.
--"Does this mean gang rapes by humans should be justified because dophins do it? If you use animals to justify one activity, it can be used in all accounts."
No, I didn't say homosexuality was OK, because my dog appears to be gay. I was using my dog as an example to show this universal law crap is bogus, and even my freaking dog doesn't buy it.
As for NAMBLA, it's of course a morally bankrupt organization. Duh. Just because the people you corresponded with got pissed you were using the homosexual communities lack of efforts against NAMBLA as a pathetic argument against homosexuality in general, it doesn't mean you're right. It means that people got pissed you were saying their lifestyle will lead to them raping children.
--"By the way, if hetrosexuality is something species do to pass on their gense, through natural selection, aren't you saying that homosexuality is a non, or at least, less desirable genetic trait?"
It is less desirable from a purely natural selection perspective. But as a civilization, I think we're a bit beyond natural selection at this point, both morally and scientifically.
--"What does it tell you when a person, soley because of their sexuality, is unable to reproduce, naturally? It tells me, whatever the cause behond the occurence of human life and our very existence doesn't want us to be gay."
Well this statement tells me a lot. Let's start with the fact that you claim our existence has desires. I'll assume you're alluding to God? I already covered this previously, and this is my whole point. You have no real argument against homosexuality, you have a belief in a primitive superstitious religion that's leading you to this conclusion. Not reason. Not science. That's the problem. And that's why it's being struck down in courts.
By the way, I'm pretty much done here, so unless a response to me is actually well-thought out and productive to the conversion, I'll go ahead and ignore it.
Haha posted on November 30th, 2009 @ 09:33:19
One more thing.
--"Actually, the report I read, explained that the woman continually made comments that she knew would provoke the guy. She knew his thoughts on the matter, yet, continued to make remarks. Sure seems like she was seeking a comfrontation to me."
That's nice. I'm going to go ahead and stick to relying on the actual live interview with the man who was fired as a better basis for what really happened.
Anna posted on December 3rd, 2009 @ 23:42:30
Homosexuality, whether genetic or by choice, is not something that we should judge of other people. Individuals can make their own choices and can live with the consequences (or lack there of). In my opinion, God will judge them in the end. Yes Haha, I'm a believer in your so-called, "primitive superstitious religion."
But, just as you have your opinions, we can believe what we want so don't bash what we believe.. We don't bash what you believe.
Lance S. Steffen posted on December 4th, 2009 @ 12:28:25
The subject of gay or not gay, generates two points of view; the favorable and the unfavorable. Both camps will live into eternitity, still unable to reach agreement. Sad, isn't it? As a suggestion, let us direct our efforts to bring about peace and justice.
Haha posted on December 10th, 2009 @ 00:15:21
These weren't really well thought out, but I'm still not ready to hit the hay so I'm going to make myself a liar and respond.
Anna, you seem to be in some sort of passive-aggressive/denial state of mind. I put forth clear points. Thinking about them, and explaining why they're wrong, or right, pushes the conversation forward. Your "we should just agree to disagree on issues that affect millions of Americans directly in large ways because I'm a religious bigot and can't rationally discuss it" attitude is a bit troubling.
Lance, you can't just leave important issues unresolved and without reason-based (as opposed to religion based) laws and have justice.
Lance S. Steffen posted on December 12th, 2009 @ 19:51:01
Haha: I hear you but I don't agree. There's too much time and material being used up on an issue that will probably never be resolved. That is poor use of time, talent and money. Out in the real world, a project that is over budget with no end in sight is, given the boot (government not included)
Your email address will never be displayed or shared.
Once your comment has been reviewed, it will be published.
Web Design and Development by LIQUA Web Solutions