In light of the misrepresentations and downright untruths that are being spread about the events of Nov. 15 in downtown Bakersville, I thought I would share some “truths” about the event.
The truth: The N.C. legislature recently voted to allow the voters of the state to amend the state constitution to include a legal definition of marriage. (See the full bill here: http://avl.mx/7r.)
The truth: The newly formed Mitchell County Gay Straight Alliance had a meeting on Nov. 15 in the Bakersville Library to discuss LGBT rights and how to defeat the upcoming N.C. Marriage Amendment and how to start GSA groups in the high school. On that same Tuesday evening a group of over 100 people gathered in a peaceful and respectful rally to support traditional marriage and the upcoming vote on the N.C. Marriage Amendment. The group that gathered on the courthouse steps did not engage or interfere with those attending the GSA meeting in any way. We simply prayed, talked amongst ourselves and sang to show our support for traditional marriage. This was absolutely not an “anti-gay” protest as it is being called by some folks with an obvious agenda.
The truth: Contrary to accounts from those in support of the GSA, in our opinion, the only one to show any “intolerance” or “anger” was a local gallery owner and GSA supporter who spent the majority of the evening hounding us with a recording device, agitating people and seemingly trying to provoke angry comments.
The truth: Being tolerant does not mean being submissive or simply acquiescing to those with whom we don’t agree. It is time for those of us who share Christian and/or traditional values to stand up for what we believe in. For too long, the silent majority has stood by as prayer was removed from our schools, abortion was made legal and radical sex education has been pushed onto our children in the public schools.
Our hope is that Nov. 15 was just the beginning of an awakening that will spread across the state and the long-silent majority of North Carolinians will be silent no more! Make sure to vote in favor of traditional marriage on May 8, 2012! (For more about the meeting and rally, visit http://avl/mx/7q.)
— Beth Walker and fellow traditional-marriage rallygoers
Bakersville
Those who are anti-gay-marriage = silent majority??? I don’t think so!!! You folks are loud and clear! Self righteous rhetoric aimed at preventing a minority from gaining civil liberties is echoed from your camps ad nauseam! Why not pray for equality …
Since the subject is shedding light on untruths, let’s take a look at the almost universally accepted but historically incorrect notions of ‘traditional marriage’:
“Americans are prone to romanticizing the past and confusing historical fantasy and reality. This is especially true when Americans ponder our society’s “bedrock” institution, the family. Among the most potent myths that pervade contemporary society are that divorce, domestic violence, and single parenthood are recent phenomena; that throughout American history, most families consisted of a breadwinner-husband and a homemaker-wife; and that in the past strong, stable families provided effective care for the elderly and other dependents. Only careful historical analysis can correct such myths.
It was only in the 1920s that, for the first time, a majority of American families consisted of a breadwinner-husband, a home-maker wife, and children attending school.
The most rapid increase in unwed pregnancies took place between 1940 and 1958, not in the libertine sixties.
The defining characteristics of the 1950s family–a rising birth rate, a stable divorce rate, and declining age of marriage–were historical aberrations, out of line with long term historical trends.
Throughout American history, most families have needed more than one breadwinner to support themselves.”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/familyhistory.cfm
The fairy tale notion of traditional marriage advanced by 1950s and 1960s television shows like ‘Father Knows Best’, ‘Leave it to Beaver’ and the like have created a mythos that is embraced as historical realities by too many clueless to reality.
Actually, “traditional marriage” in countries practicing the Abrahamic religions has already been defined and practiced for centuries as a three-part union amongst [1] a man and his wife (mother of his legitimate children), [2] his concubines and mistresses (mothers of his other offspring), and [3] his property rights, including slaves
Actually, “traditional marriage” in countries practicing the Abrahamic religions has already been defined and practiced for centuries as a three-part union amongst [1] a man and his wife (mother of his legitimate children), [2] his concubines and mistresses (mothers of his other offspring), and [3] his property rights, including slaves
Many of us dream of the day when you Christianists become the “long-silent majority”, stop forcing your mythical beliefs on the rest of society and respect the separation of church and state as stated in the Constitution for the very reason that people like you exist.
A little angry are we? The gays have a right
to live any lifestyle they choose, however
please don’t expect everyone to accept it as
normal behavior. It’s NOT the way God
intended, if it were, gays would be able to
procreate. Gay behavior doesn’t occur anywhere in in the animal kingdom except in humans.
You might actually want to read the
constitution. That phrase does NOT exist.
That is a misquote of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” as
written in Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to
the Danbury Baptist Asso. The original text declared that the legislature should ‘make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’.
Jefferson’s intent was keep the government
OUT of the way of the church.
Apparently what you believe is far more
mystical than reality.
I have never understood how any self-respecting adult woman could practice Christianization with all the disenfranchisement it entails for herself and her children.
The devil is in the details, ladies–the legal details. Christianity, including
In regard to the recent so-called
I agree with Beth.
I would fight for a gay’s right to live any lifestyle they choose.
However, morality and logic precludes most from calling it normal.
If being gay were a natural, instinctive behavior, as many would have you believe, it would occur elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Homosexuality is a choice, not a fate.
Angry No. Just eminently tired of people who will never concede an argument despite all evidence to the contrary. Since homosexuality exists in humans, it was obviously God’s intent. Or do you know better than God?
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Angry No. Just eminently tired of people who will never concede an argument despite all evidence to the contrary. Since homosexuality exists in humans, it was obviously God’s intent. Or do you know better than God?
Without the link so you can read it. Didn’t fit in the box right.
Christopher C NC, would you please repost your statement as a new comment post? When you post as a “reply” following several layers of replies, the right-hand side of your post gets cut off and cannot be deciphered by readers.
Thanks.
This proposed legislation is not a simple “gay right’s” issue, so do not try to reduce it to that. The devil is in the details, the return to the full reactionary range of human inequalities that has been our shame for centuries.
This proposed legislation is an issue of individual rights, freedom, and liberty for each and every human being. Sexual orientation does not totally define a person’s rights as an individual. Being a human does, and in our nation every individual person should have the same basic social and economic rights as any other individual human person. There should be no hierarchy of individual rights based on race or religion or gender or any other such personal thing.
Human rights and equality must be the bedrock of our lives. Our freedom and liberty as a nation depend on it.
No one in our society is truly free until we all are free to be ourselves without a legal system imposing a hierarchical social and economic structure of inequality upon us, sexist or otherwise, which is exactly what legalizing the Christianist definition of
Yeah, yeah – “Christian and/or traditional values”. And you have appointed yourself to be the determiner of what supposed attitudes in the past are worthy of being elevated to “traditional values”, and worshiped as sacrosanct? Well, two can play that game.
Guess what? The original Christians in America, the Puritans, outlawed celebrating Christmas, calling it an “abomination”, “paganism” and “idolatry”. Santa Claus was called the “Anti-Christ”.
I proclaim this to be a “Christian and/or traditional value” that all Americans must now accept as law. All right-thinking traditional-values people now agree that Christmas should be outlawed, and Santa Claus be burned at the stake. Hallelujah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_in_Puritan_New_England
Barry, I can read only the left side of your comment. The right half is cut off.
Looks fine on my screen. Try it this way, with a shortened link:
Yeah, yeah – “Christian and/or traditional values”. And you have appointed yourself to be the determiner of what supposed attitudes in the past are worthy of being elevated to “traditional values”, and worshiped as sacrosanct? Well, two can play that game.
Guess what? The original Christians in America, the Puritans, outlawed celebrating Christmas, calling it an “abomination”, “paganism” and “idolatry”. Santa Claus was called the “Anti-Christ”.
I proclaim this to be a “Christian and/or traditional value” that all Americans must now accept as law. All right-thinking traditional-values people now agree that Christmas should be outlawed, and Santa Claus be burned at the stake. Hallelujah!
http://tinyurl.com/8ybmdts
“Homosexuality is a choice, not a fate.”
How about sharing your own experience when you made this “choice.” How old were you? Did you tell your parents? Once you made this “choice” was it difficult to suppress your obviously pre-existing attraction to members of your own sex? If it was a “choice” then you must have been attracted to both or no choice would be involved.
<iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/z01XLikQaOQ?rel=0″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>
Chris, Dio, Betty, Barry: I can not get what I want to say to post. (What browser is anyone getting through with?) Some kind of big word filter. Here’s some ammo:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/family/articles/2011/12/11/led_by_the_child_who_simply_knew/?page=full
@Mr.Yuck,
That is a poignant article. These self-styled ‘silent majority’ types would probably stick their fingers in their ears and yell ‘na na na naaaa na’ before they’d pay any attention to situations like this. It does not comport with their world view.
I forgot that that article is behind a pay wall. If you can get there, it’s a good read.
“I forgot that that article is behind a pay wall. If you can get there, itТs a good read.”
I clicked on the link and went straight to it, no pay wall or anything. And it was a good read.
Well, Beth, (and fellow trad. marriage rallygoers in Bakersville), You are all most certainly entitled to your own opinions and feelings, and povs on these and other issues, and yes, you have the right to express yourselves concerning such. And very conveniently for you, you also happen to be self-proclaimed Christians and Heterosexuals with seemingly right wing political Victorian values. (That is to say, the percentage of the Victorian Era England that actually was so staunchly-starched, statistically speaking). And you certainly had the right to “peacefully protest”, however misguided and passive aggressive an action this may have been, may have seemed to have been, and which may in fact have been a bit more than “passively aggressive” an action, all things considered, and given the underlying tell-tale notes of a self-righteous-holy-refrain. You simply must keep in mind, Beth, that the L.G.B.T. Community is NOT going to go away. Students in schools are entitled to, I should think, having their own peer support groups, for one thing. Also, it is not as if though you can change the fact that more and more everyday this country is changing and growing, so you need to face the reality of diversity, and preferably NOT meet DIversity with ADversity. Nor is forcing your religious and political beliefs/povs on others ever going to stop the human biological urge/scourge of teen adolescense and hormonal rage. What possible good could come of preaching/teaching ignorance, keeping sex ed. out of schools? And by taking away any woman’s rights to her own reproductive health and other care, and rights over her own body, and proper education, assistance, and options? Same goes for everyone else in regards to their personal rights and freedoms. Maybe you should really be asking yourselves, then, “What Would Jesus Do”? As far as I know, he was not self-righteous or judgemental of others. He did not turn aside a prostitute, nor a leper. Just food for thought, here. Perhaps the best way you can be good Christians is to stop preaching so much, and go back to practicing. You might be surprised at what you discover about yourselves, your faith, and others. And heck, if that don’t work, you can always distribute Jack Chick Publications around the area, like in Bus Stations.
Which is worse? Celebrating the pagan, idolatrous abomination of “Christmas”, or being gay? Traditional Christian Valuists
If heterosexual marriage had not been the norm in the human realm for thousands of years, none of us would be here today. Nor would Western civilization. Yeah, I know it’s cool and chic to smugly degrade traditional values and those who espouse them. That seems to be the liberal way these days, what a herd mentality. It’s amazing to me how many leftists are experts on Christianity as well. Since the breakdown of the traditional family beginning in the 1960s, our society has declined by many measures. And many of the writers here are the proof of that.
Before you get all Manifest Destiny-y on us, consider whether what you’re espousing is such a great thing. If “heterosexual marriage” and the attendant pressure to have children were not the “norm”, we might not have the disastrous population growth we have. We just passed the seven billion mark. Are you asserting that this is a good thing, and that the “gays” have let the rest of humanity down by not adding another billion or two to the mix? Human overpopulation is killing this planet, and yet you seem to be applauding it.
And I, for one, am not degrading ‘traditional values’ – I’m pointing out that there are many many ‘traditions’ to choose from, and those who insist that their traditions must be paramount… well, that’s faintly ridiculous, not necessarily the values themselves…
There are at least two huge problems with this line of thinking. One that heterosexuality is such a tenuously held orientation that treating homosexuals equally under the law would lead to a mass conversion as the preferred choice and all baby making would cease. Two that somehow the so called “breakdown” of the traditional family can be pinned on gays and has nothing to do with economics and a whole host of other social issues.
I’d suggest you look for the cause of the decline a little closer to your heterosexual home.
It’s sex hormones, not marriage, that causes babies.
And traditional marriage as per Abrahamic religions is not conducive to nurturing of children.
Or women.
But it’s great for the divorce lawyers.
“Being tolerant does not mean being submissive or simply acquiescing to those with whom we don
“And many of the writers here are the proof of that.”
Agreed. I have often thought Fobes must be the product of homosexual communists.