<div align="center"><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" bordercolor="#111111" bgcolor="#C9C0A7" width="414" height="66"><tr><td background="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/little_back.gif" width="56"><img src="http://somd.com/news/inmyopinion/trr.gif" width="56" height="56"></td><td width="358"><font face="Impact" color="#000000" size="6">In My Opinion</font><font face="Arial" color="#000000" size="3"><i><br><b> by Trevor Bothwell</b></i></td></tr></table></div>
<font face="Arial">
</font>
Nyack (N.Y.) mayor John Shields is but one of the latest gay marriage advocates who claims he will challenge New York law by taking legal action against the state, which currently prohibits same-sex marriage.

While I suppose we should give the mayor credit for at least opting to take his case to a courtroom instead of simply flouting the law -- in the spirit of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom -- and issuing marriage certificates to gay couples, as Jason West, mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., has already done, Mayor Shields wins the prize for most creative slander against those opposed to legalizing gay marriage.

Appearing on Fox News's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren recently, Mayor Shields, who wishes to wed his present boyfriend, said we have to fight the rampant "heterosexism" that has apparently taken the country by storm.

Huh?

I don't even know what "heterosexism" is supposed to mean (one wonders if the mayor does, either). Taken literally, I guess we could parse the word to define "sexism against those who are different." So in that case, it's ... uh ... no different than plain ol' "sexism"?

Oh, who cares? The mayor doesn't care what the word really means, either. He just thinks it sounds like a trendy new catchphrase implying that anyone who actually has the temerity to challenge this radical redefinition of marriage must be a bigot.

I know. Silly little "heteros." How dare we think a 5,000-year-old tradition could actually be legitimate! (Note to Mr. Shields: There are plenty of heterosexuals who favor gay marriage.)

The point here is not that Mr. Shields’ new linguistic invention bears no validity to current etymological convention, at least as far as accurately describing those who oppose same-sex marriage, anyway. What is really at issue is the fact that too many headstrong minority groups would rather cast baseless accusations at their critics as opposed to engaging in meaningful discussion of their issues, which could actually accomplish compromise for both sides.

But you’ve got to hand it to liberals. They really have figured out how to stifle debate before it even begins. How many times have you heard Democrats and liberals accuse others of being “racists” for opposing race-based affirmative action programs, or “homophobes” (another bizarre word) for simply refusing to believe gays should get special treatment under the law?

When faced with realistic concerns, liberals know they can’t compete with the many commonsense arguments of conservatives, so it’s easier to brand the opposition as intolerant racists, chauvinists, or bigots. However, this also assumes that liberals are essentially willing to tolerate the views of their opponents in the first place, which often they are not.

Take, for instance, Rosie O'Donnell, who after wedding longtime girlfriend Kelli Carpenter in San Francisco said, "I think the actions of the president are … the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president. I am stunned and horrified."

“Stunned and horrified” that the President of the United States is actually interested in defending the traditions of America? Indeed, of civilization itself? The president is “vile” (another word for “evil”) because he prefers to “conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger,” as opposed to watching activist courts overturn state laws, or city and state officials intentionally disobey them? (Apparently, use of the word “evil” doesn’t bother liberals so long as they can use it to describe the man who would actually destroy it.)

If the gay lobby and its defenders could simply restrain their hyperventilation over their own hatred for Bush and for others with whom they disagree, they might find they’d be taken a bit more seriously. After all, intimating that the president is evil doesn’t convey hate?

Nearly two-thirds of the country opposes same-sex marriage. Included in this figure are Republicans and Democrats alike, some of whom just finished competing for the Democratic nomination this year.

Gay marriage activists are not above the law. If they wish to make headway in accomplishing one of the most monumental transformations in all of humanity, they would do well to observe our foundations of democratic rule and renounce the disrespectful taunts, especially when they have to concoct meaningless expressions to do it.
<p>
<center><a href="http://www.therightreport.com/articles/InMyOpinion/myopinion_home.htm"><b>In My Opinion Archives</b></a></center>
[i]Trevor Bothwell is editor of <a href="http://www.therightreport.com/"> The Right Report</a> and and is a Townhall.com book reviewer. He is also co-founder of <a href="http://www.thepoliticaldivide.com/">The Political Divide</a>, a new political blog site. He is a former elementary school teacher and college instructor.</font>

Gay marriage activists are not above the law. If they wish to make headway in accomplishing one of the most monumental transformations in all of humanity, they would do well to observe our foundations of democratic rule and renounce the disrespectful taunts, especially when they have to concoct meaningless expressions to do it.

I think the mayor was just trying to say... We should all commence boarding the technicolor train. :rolleyes:

What the hell does "special treatment" mean? I've heard that for years from people who think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't know what they're talking about.

Heterosexism is a term used to describe a bias exhibited by a society or community that is often subtle but nonetheless pervasive, whereby cultural institutions and individuals are conditioned to expect others to live and behave as if everyone were heterosexual.

Heterosexism, like sexism, is firmly entrenched in the prevailing customs, tradition and institutions of society. It serves to silence and erase the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual people, creating a dearth of positive cultural images.

Similarly to homophobia, the term heterosexism began to be used in late 1960s. It highlighted the parallels between prejudice against lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, and other forms of prejudice - against women (sexism), people of different ethnic origin (racism), and against Jewish people (anti-Semitism).

Dr Gregory Herek, an internationally recognised authority on sexual prejudice (or homophobia), describes heterosexism as an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatises any non-heterosexual form of behaviour, identity, relationship, or community.

Ken, are you saying that heterosexism is about the sexual orientation, while homophobia is about the persons?

Originally posted by Tonio
Ken, are you saying that heterosexism is about the sexual orientation, while homophobia is about the persons?
No, I just provided a definition as to what the term means.

Apparently, people are having a difficult time grasping the sarcasm of my column. I fully understand that the term "heterosexism" is believed to be an accurate description of those who would simply discount any "non-hetero" from the scope of society.

This has always been a fallacious depiction by the left, or by anyone who is only able to witness discrimination against any self-identified minority group. How this implied "hatred" against "non-heteros" (I just love writing that) is any different than the inherent disregard and cynicism that homosexuals (or their defenders) have against those opposite their sexual persuasion is beyond me.

As far as "special treatment" for homosexuals goes, what are "hate crimes" supposed to be? They're laws that compound a crime if "hate" can be proven to be a cause of the crime -- as if a crime is any less a crime if the criminal doesn't "hate" his enemy. Please. But worse than this is the opportunity for criminals to now be acquitted simply because "hate" can't be proven to be the cause of the crime. Let's stick to punishing criminal behavior and leave the reasons to the behaviorists.

In short, the term "heterosexism" is as ridiculous as the term "homophobe," which while retaining an airtight, acceptable definition for its advocates, really means nothing more than -- what? -- "fear against things that are the same"?

I can see it now: "Run, Merle! Them two's twins!"

There is no such thing as being gay. They are called homosexuals and lesbians. People are not born this way and only diverge into this lifestyle and they should be classified as what they are, mentally disturbed.

It's a very sick society that will take an American tradion and allow homosexuals to deface it. I just wish there were more people in this country that actually had some moral foundation, that didn't sway with the changes in society. What type of foundation is it if it changes with time?

Romans 1

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

ceo...first, it's not an American Tradition...it's a worldwide, global thing.

Second...although I do not beleive in gay marrige...they aren't mentally disturbed, I'm sure quite a few people could make the same argument about a Christian "fanatic" too. And I know a thing or 2 about the bible because I was FORCED thru 7 years of church and catholic school. It's not right to label them mentally disturbed just because they do not conform with your way of thinking....that's....bigotish...I am not bashing you personally, your post was just kind of retarded to me.

And lesbians ARE homosexuals...And yes they diverge into that lifestyle just as you have diverged into your Christian lifestyle, no difference at all...but you will not feel that way because you are in the majority...

**DISCLAIMER** I AM NOT A HOMO

Originally posted by darkriver4362
ceo...first, it's not an American Tradition...it's a worldwide, global thing.

Second...although I do not beleive in gay marrige...they aren't mentally disturbed, I'm sure quite a few people could make the same argument about a Christian "fanatic" too. And I know a thing or 2 about the bible because I was FORCED thru 7 years of church and catholic school. It's not right to label them mentally disturbed just because they do not conform with your way of thinking....that's....bigotish...I am not bashing you personally, your post was just kind of retarded to me.

And lesbians ARE homosexuals...And yes they diverge into that lifestyle just as you have diverged into your Christian lifestyle, no difference at all...but you will not feel that way because you are in the majority...

**DISCLAIMER** I AM NOT A HOMO

:yeahthat: :thewave:

Ok, here is the real deal. For the guy who quoted something out of the bible. That is nice that you believe in that religion. That is good for you. However, some of us do not believe in a religion and should not be forced to believe that hocus-pocus. And besides, what about all those other religions around the world? You need to really broaden your mind a bit. Second, as far as "special rights" go, I see nothing special about equality. I mean, fair is fair. Being allowed to marry would not be a special right for gays, it would be equal rights. And if people really want to defend marriage, do away with no fault divorce. Send those that commit adultery to jail for 10 years. I have grown up in St. Mary's, been educated around the world, and it is a shame to see such narrow mindedness and bigotry still exists. In this country we are supposed to have separation of church and state. Keep your religion out of my laws, and keep your laws out of my bedroom. People thought that blacks and whites getting married was the end of the world back in the day, funny, the world still turns.:notworthy

C'mon Trevor, you slipped on this one. I don't agree with a lot of the things you write but I always read them because you often make a well developed and intelligent argument. Not this time. BTW, since I know who you are, it's only fair that you know who I am (Matt Funk).

I don't even know what "heterosexism" is supposed to mean - so how can you say it's slander to use the term?? That's a brazen accusation in a public arena.

Silly little "heteros." How dare we think a 5,000-year-old tradition could actually be legitimate! - so you are saying that tradition implies "morally correct"? Come on, let's not get started on all the age old traditions that have been upset by practices that are now considered acceptable. See AimHigh's post about interracial marriages. Heck, even slavery was a tradition from ancient times. Are you saying slavery is justified by tradition? I don't think so.

Nearly two-thirds of the country opposes same-sex marriage. - even if this is true, why is it important? I'm sure 2/3 of the country opposes lots of things, but that doesn't make them illegal. Things are not immoral just because not everyone does those things. Our country was founded on the belief that every individual has the right to choose what's best for them. Laws are set up to protect our society. What exactly are we protecting ourselves from by outlawing gay marriage? A moral degradation of our proper Christian society? Get real.

How this implied "hatred" against "non-heteros" (I just love writing that) is any different than the inherent disregard and cynicism that homosexuals (or their defenders) have against those opposite their sexual persuasion is beyond me - Again, you know what this means as well as I do. "disregard and cynicism" is a far cry from discrimination. There are no laws that restrict priviledges from heterosexuals based on their lifestyle choices. You can dislike and ignore people all you want, based on anything you want, but when you try to restrict people's rights based on social profiles, that's when you violate the Constitution (and the most important "tradition" in this country - freedom of choice).

Ceo_pte, your post is EXACTLY what gets people labeled as bigots. Your opinion of "my way is right because this bible says so" is in direct opposition to the freedom of religion that allowed Christianity to grow to its current proportions. You believe what you want to, and I'll defend your right to do so to the death, but don't you dare try to force me to follow your beliefs. And to say that any opposing belief is "mentally disturbed", well, isn't that just casting stone from a house of glass?

Here's a question for everyone. What if some "great gay martyr" started a homosexual religion? Then we couldn't discriminate against them any more than we can against Catholics or Jewish. Separation of church and state.

Geez, I should lay off the coffee. I seem to be getting more and more liberal every day. I think GW Bush's presidency has talked me out of voting Republican for a long time. And to think I voted for him myself. Don't worry, I fully acknowledge that Clinton talked a lot of people out of voting Democratic....

Sorry for the lengthy post...

Matt

I fully agree Matt. In the near future, I will be a bit more politically active, and may even run for an office. I don't oppose religion of any kind, but, I think America has forgotten that there is a separation of Church and State. I mean, if some people want to interpret the Bible literally, I wonder how much my brother could get for selling his daughters into slavery. That's in Leviticus somewhere I believe. My basic point is that religion belongs in a church, or mosque or synagog, not in our laws. I am and always be pro-marriage and pro-family. Just remember, you don't have to support homosexuality to support marriage. The issue shouldn't be whether you are gay or straight, but if you support marriage. I guess if someone is not pro-marriage, they must also be anti-family. Just two more cents of mine.:dance: