Legalizing gay marriage will unleash a torrent of intolerance

Those pushing for legalizing same-sex marriage present it as a matter of tolerance and “civil rights.” That’s how President Obama explained his views. But it’s not about tolerance, it’s about intolerance. Let me explain.

The Left has gotten away with this mask of tolerance for too long. You’ll notice I call them “The Left” rather than Liberal, and I do that because they are not liberal. Their movement sprang from liberalism, because when the views of the Left were much less popular, they got their voices heard by appealing to tolerance. But as they have gained power, their intolerance has become much more evident.

A couple of months ago, the Pew Research Center published a study about tolerance. They found that “Liberals” were twice as likely as “Conservatives” to block or unfriend people on social network sites because they posted something they disagreed with. We conservatives have known about this intolerance for a long time. It’s a difficult thing for the Left to acknowledge.

So that should give us cause to question that legalizing gay marriage will be a step toward tolerance and understanding. In fact, it will be a giant step away from those values.

Gay people have the right to marry just the same as everyone else. I recently had occasion to examine a marriage license application here in Arizona. Nowhere on the application was there any question about sexual orientation. I’m confident the same is true in every state in the union. Gays can marry—they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex because that’s what marriage is. Gay marriage is not about civil rights, it’s about changing the definition of marriage.

And here is the heart of the issue. The problem radical gay activists have is that there is a word in our language whose definition implies that there is a difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one. They don’t want there to be such a word.

It’s not about tolerance of gays. This is about silencing people. We are not permitted to have a word that implies a difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. And once the definition of the word is changed, they will keep pressing to ban any expression in the pubic square that there is any such difference. People who hold that view will not be welcome to broadcast their views on television or radio, maybe even on the Internet. They won’t be allowed to express those views in public schools. They will be drummed out of public office. If the locations of their homes are known, they will be in jeopardy.

Look at how they are treated already. Carrie Prejean was disqualified from serving as Miss USA for expressing her belief in traditional marriage. Gay blogger Perez Hilton exploded over her response. Proponents of Proposition 8 in California have been vandalized and attacked. Actors who backed the measure have been blacklisted.

In Massachusetts, schools are already moving to purge any expressions of preference for traditional marriage, lest the young ones be exposed to any such notions.

After my last posting about gay marriage in January, I received several responses from gay marriage activists. One, in particular, gloated over what he saw as the inevitability of public acceptance and boasting over what he saw as the defeat of religion. You see, certain religions say that homosexual acts are sinful. That can’t be allowed. And that is what this is about—silencing those voices. No, no, don’t fall for it. For the Left, tolerance is a mask, not a conviction.

Follow-up – here is a PERFECT illustration. A gay marriage advocate posts a sign at a church that speaks of including everyone, but her comments in which she reveals the thoughts and emotions that motivated her to put up the sign speak of her intolerance and her delight over the uproar that she caused. See my follow-up post: Gay marriage advocates and their intolerance of religion.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

About mesasmiles

By Dr. David Hall. Dr. Hall runs Infinity Dental Web, a small company that does Internet marketing for dentists. He has had a long-standing interest in politics and as a college student toyed with the idea of a political career.
This entry was posted in Gay Marriage and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Legalizing gay marriage will unleash a torrent of intolerance

  1. Sam says:

    Hi Dave,
    I am glad to see that you are back to blogging. I appreciate your passion for your beliefs. As a fellow conservative, although much much more moderate, I am concerned about the way you write to persuade. You have strongly implied in your blog that if gay marriage is legalized then it will ultimately jeopardize the lives’ of people with different viewpoints. (Refer to end of paragraph 7)

    Now you are entitled to your own opinion, Dave, but so am I, and I think it is dangerously irresponsible for you to spread such ridiculous rhetoric as this.

    You have also exposed yourself as a hypocrite, again, as you accuse the Left of blocking people on social networks because they disagree with their opinions. Dave, this isn’t the first comment I’ve left on your blog, but if you publish it, it will be the first to be published. You actually disabled comments on some of the postings I tried to comment on. Dave, if my opinions are too radical for your other viewers to see I would be happy to receive an email from you just the same. Word of advice, before you go accusing the Left of being internet blockers, make sure you aren’t doing the same!

    Response by David Hall:

    I do not block people on social network sites because of their views. But I do set my own standards for what I let get through on my blogs. And these are my standards: I do publish people who disagree with me, but I do have certain standards of expression that those who comment need to meet. I don’t remember any of your other comments. But I must say that your comments here barely make the cut.

    To start with, your condescension is really off-putting. Must we start with that? Let’s just get to the issue. I don’t need you to be “concerned” about me.

    I am not sure I understand the purpose of your comments. You claim to be conservative like me but “much more moderate.” And then you speculate that your comments might be too radical for my blog. So here you have applied three labels to yourself: conservative, moderate, and radical. Which is it? It would help if you would just be straightforward about the point you’re trying to make. You think that radical gay activists are tolerant? What is your point?

    The two points you seem to be making are both based on a misstating of the facts. I am not “accusing the Left of being Internet blockers,” I am reporting on a study done by the Pew Research Center. If you are the conservative that you claim to be, exactly what problem do you have with this report? Have you read it? I provided a link. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to block people because of their beliefs. This is totally consistent with everything conservatives know about liberals.

    And I did not imply that people’s lives would be in danger for supporting traditional marriage, but I did say that their homes, their property, could be in jeopardy. This is not wild rhetoric – this has actually happened. All the acts of intolerance – the name-calling, the trying to get people off the air, the vandalism, the clamping down on what can be said in schools – they have all happened.

    So I have this question for you: Is your blindness to these things that have happened willful or just careless?

    These questions I have posed, by the way, are rhetorical.

    Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

  2. Craig says:

    “Gays can marry—they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex because that’s what marriage is.” Dave, isn’t this the issue? If they are gay they don’t want to marry someone of the opposite-sex… They can’t therefore marry the person they “love”, unlike you were able too. I understand your point in-regards to making this issue more about the definition of marriage, but I would disagree with your reasoning’s behind the issue.

    My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and women. It is the natural order of things and my religious beliefs support this also. I do however realize a relationship between a man and women may not be natural for other people but a relationship with the same-sex is.

    Sam, I read your comments and feel the same frustrations you expressed in your statement. I wanted you to know that I too have had comments not posted and it is frustrating because typically the posts not posted are in response to Dave’s previous post to your comments which leaves Dave with the final word and no posting of your response. I welcome all comments and views because it helps see what others thoughts are. This is a great way to understand people and their perspective because like many things in life your views get stronger or change when you deal with these types of issues on a personal basis vs. purely from an academia or philosophical debate.

    Response by David Hall
    I’m going to go ahead and post your comment, but I must say that I disagree with this entitlement mentality that this blog owes people some kind of right to comment. This is my blog that I pay for. I don’t “block” people – anyone who wants to start a blog can do so and more power to them. But I’m not going to take the time to edit and/or respond to everything. This is a blog I created to share my views. If you or Sam want to start your own blogs to air your views, you are welcome. You know, I’ll even offer links to you.

    I’m not greatly impressed with your comment. There’s not much creative thought or incisive analysis here, but it does give me a springboard to reinforce what I was saying. You miss the whole point I made about the gay marriage “rights” issue. Everybody knows what the gay activists want – they want to call it marriage. But it’s not a matter of a civil right. They have a right to marry. They just don’t like the definition of marriage. There are no “rights” here being violated. They can have sex with whomever they want. They have been given visitation rights, property rights, etc. They can even, if they want, call their relationship “marriage.” But that isn’t good enough – they want to make everyone else call it marriage.

    And while you say that your personal view is that you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, you seem to lack the passion that I have for defeating the redefinition of marriage. Maybe you don’t care that much one way or the other, if it is defeated or not, as long as you have your personal belief that you can keep to yourself. But I will re-emphasize that I am dead-on right about this intolerance issue. If they get their way and re-define marriage, that will not be the end of the matter. Not by any stretch. As an LDS person, you ought to be able to perceive what is behind their efforts. If you have a religious belief that the homosexual act is a sin, well that has to be stamped out and they don’t want to have to hear that, and they will go to great lengths to not have to hear that. And historically, people like that have resorted to violence to keep from having to hear those unpleasant things. They have declared war on our traditional values, and I am sorry to say, Craig, it doesn’t seem to me like you are up for the fight.

    Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

  3. Mike says:

    “But that isn’t good enough – they want to make everyone else call it marriage.”

    To me that really is the crux of the whole matter. For “liberals”/”the left”/”progressives”/”confused people”, it’s not good enough for them to have their own views – they want to force you to adopt their views as your own.

    Our founding fathers believed in “Natural Law” and based many of the thoughts and ideas that they incorporated into the constitution on that belief. The Declaration of Independence itself begins with an appeal to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” According to Cicero, Natural Law is “True Law.” To quote Cicero:

    “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.”

    I think that sums it up pretty concisely.

  4. Craig Lund says:


    Thank you for your response to my posting . . . .
    The [LDS] church and BYU has changed in certain areas in-regards to this issue. There are over 1,800 LGBT students at BYU. In 2010 a gay-straight alliance group USGA was formed for BYU students to help foster improved understanding of same-gender attraction. ( BYU also changed its Honor Code in 2007 allowing LGBT students to openly state their sexual orientation without fear of expulsion and in 2010 lifted a ban on advocacy of homosexuality.

    Comment by Dave Hall
    I pulled this paragraph out of your latest response, because it is an interesting point about homosexuality. I have a son who will be attending BYU in the fall, and I am familiar with this policy toward gays.

    A couple of weeks ago, I listened to an interview of Pastor Joel Osteen by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. He was asked if being gay was a sin. He responded, “I believe the scripture says that being gay is a sin.” I disagree. I don’t believe the scriptures say that. And this is also the position of the LDS Church. The scriptures say that a sin is something you do. How could what you are be a sin? What kind of God would condemn someone for what they are? That’s why I was careful in my original post to talk about the belief that “homosexual acts are sinful.” This is an important difference, and thanks for bringing that out.

Leave a Reply

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