Lifestyle acceptance is two-way street

  • Follow Letters

This past weekend, Augusta had its second annual Pride Day celebrating "alternative lifestyles." We are told that all they want is acceptance.

If this is truly what they want, I'm all for it. But past practices show that what they want is not acceptance but legitimacy. If a majority of people do not agree with them, they find a sympathetic official to interpret what they want as legal. Most times this official is a part of their lifestyle.

So I guess a pedophile can claim this also. Soon other "alternative lifestyles" will be represented. The man in love with animals will be allowed to marry and add his beast to our medical insurance, and maybe allow the animal to vote.

Does this sound crazy? Ten years ago gays and lesbians couldn't get married. As a Christian, I guess I practice an "alternative lifestyle," too.

Gays ask for tolerance but give nothing in return. If I don't accept their "lifestyle," I'm a homophobe. If you don't accept mine, I can't call you anything because then I'm a "hater." It seems like we have to be tolerant to everybody but Christians.

If you want my acceptance, give me a reason to accept you. If I want yours, I'll expect nothing less.

Larry Wylds

Hephzibah

Comments (18)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Iwannakno
1533
Points
Iwannakno 06/29/11 - 06:09 am
0
0

Almost all gays accept

Unpublished

Almost all gays accept Christians...very few Christians accept gays.

broad street narrow mind
348
Points
broad street narrow mind 06/29/11 - 07:25 am
0
0

bizarre letter. if i were

Unpublished

bizarre letter. if i were extend that brain teaser- did jews show hitler enough acceptance? did fail slaves fail to properly accept slave owners?
hey, larry, gay people want to be accepted as in, hold a job they're qulaified for, live where they live without hassle, and marry who they want the same as straight people. work, live, love. if a straight guy can't marry a dog, i agree that a gay guy shouldn't be allowed to either. i agree- no special rights.

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/29/11 - 07:50 am
0
1

Larry Wylds, in his

Larry Wylds, in his borderline incoherent letter, goes through all the usual white, Christian, straight male mumbo-jumbo about "acceptance," "tolerance," and what he confusedly calls "legitimacy." Bottom line: he does not now, and probably never will, practice the "acceptance" he sort of says he agrees to. He complains (don't they all?) that when Christians reject homosexuality, they are labeled homophobic. Well, duh? He says it's really the gays and those who tolerate them who are intolerant--of Christians. Well yes, we are. We are intolerant of your blatant intolerance! And we should be. Were those who were intolerant of the old Bible-based racism in the South wrong to be intolerant? Of course not. Years ago, the group of Americans that white male Christians loved to discriminate against were African-Americans. Today, the target is gays. What Wylds does not acknowledge is that in both cases (racism and gay bashing), there are two very different sorts of intolerance. The one that ALWAYS come first is the intolerance of Christians, for blacks in the past, of gays today. The intolerance of which Wylds complains, ALWAYS come later, in response to the first. There is a world of difference between saying "I don't tolerate gays" and "I don't tolerate anyone who doesn't tolerate gays."

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/29/11 - 08:02 am
0
1

"It seems like we have to be

"It seems like we have to be tolerant to everybody but Christians." Boy, times do change. It wasn't too long ago we all read and listened to conservatives who complained of the allegedly liberal "culture of victimhood." Women, blacks, gays, the poor, all complaining they were "victims" in order to get what they wanted. The shoe seems to be on the other foot now. Here is Wylds claiming he and other Christians are victims of intolerance. So why was crying victimization wrong when, allegedly invoked by liberals, but OK now when invoked by Christians such as Wylds?

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/29/11 - 08:11 am
0
1

And by the way, when Wylds

And by the way, when Wylds makes the (perverse) segue from gays
to pedophiles, he implicitly evokes the Christian myth that disproportionally, gays are child molesters. Isn't it way past time to put this myth to rest? A simple search of the literature shows there is ZERO evidence that gays are any more likely to molest children than straights. About the only groups that still claim the opposite are Christian groups such as the loony Family Research Council. I fact, in terms of sheer numbers, there are probably 10 times the number of heterosexual child abusers as homosexual child abusers, simply because there are 10 times the number of straights as gays!

southernguy08
415
Points
southernguy08 06/29/11 - 08:16 am
0
0

Larry wrote a letter

Unpublished

Larry wrote a letter expressing his feelings about gays, and is attacked because he obviously doesn't accept their lifestyle. What a surprise! I thought being an American meant you didn't have to accept anyone, as long as you stay on your side of the line. Silly me.

effete elitist liberal
2760
Points
effete elitist liberal 06/29/11 - 10:29 am
0
0

"Larry...obviously doesn't

"Larry...obviously doesn't accept their lifestyle." But, swg, he says he does:

"We are told that all they want is acceptance. If this is truly what they want, I'm all for it."

My problem with Wylds is that he says he accepts gays, but clearly does not.

So is his "I'm all for it" remark a lie?, confusion?, hypocrisy?

I'm sure you'll clear this up for us.

follower
49
Points
follower 06/29/11 - 11:08 am
0
0

EEL, aren't you saying the

EEL, aren't you saying the LTE writer is lying?; confused?; hypocritical?

Your words state, "My problem with Wylds is that he says he accepts gays, but clearly does not".

Are you a mind reader? That seems to be your implication.

I certainly can't speak for all that call themselves Christian. Many people of many faiths and belief systems speak out of both sides of their mouth and act contrary to their faith, and it's regretful. At no time does my faith condone demeaning or debasing another person. But it clearly spells out lifestyle and life choices that are contrary to it's teaching.

The issue with so many people that call themselves Christian is the tendency to spotlight a "sin" in others, eschewing the "sin" in their own life. Yes, that would be hypocrisy, and it's possibly the #1 turn-off in the perception of Christianity. I understand.

God tells us to love, period. And we can do so without "bashing" another, it's just that so many don't. They will know us by our love. Sadly it's missing from many that claim the name of Christ.

burninater
6809
Points
burninater 06/29/11 - 11:20 am
0
1

I bet if Mr. Wylds were

I bet if Mr. Wylds were around during the Women's Suffrage movement, he'd have argued that if women were allowed to vote, then we'd have to let monkeys and burros vote too.

O wait, is that me pointing out that his extension of marriage to include dogs is asinine, or am I Christian bashing when I say that?

nofanofobama
6163
Points
nofanofobama 06/29/11 - 11:31 am
0
0

EEL-your understanding of

EEL-your understanding of chritianity is naive. and your hatred is obvious...dont pretend that you are the tolerant one--liberals are NOT..wether you want to believe it or not we will all be judged by the same standards..

MJDW
0
Points
MJDW 06/29/11 - 11:48 am
0
0

effete elitist liberal, Larry

effete elitist liberal, Larry was not on Broad street holding a sign against Gay's. Larry has had many young frineds of his children in his home that are gay, as a GOOD man leaving out (Christian) he has shown love without bashing. People like you always read more then what is there to read or when someone has something to say. And I didn't read where he said Gay's were pedophile's he said that it could be a lifestyle choice. People like you are your on worse enemy!!!

lwylds
6
Points
lwylds 06/29/11 - 12:04 pm
0
0

I don't pretend to know

I don't pretend to know everything about "alternative lifestyles." I never said in my letter i did. I also never called a homosexual person a child molester, I said they(the chid molester) could be termed this also. Once we start rationalizing anything, it becomes mainstream. I did say and still believe that when a majority votes for something and it passes whether it is for marriage or anything else. The offended party should accept it and try something else not get a sympathetic official to "Interpret" it to be illegitimate. And women voting is far different from marrying animals. And as a Christian we are told to love the sinner but hate the sin. I can differentiate between the two.

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 06/29/11 - 12:06 pm
0
0

The good 'ol slippery slope

The good 'ol slippery slope people being people being able to marry animals should gays have the same rights as straight people. Classic. To deny humans the same rights that are afforded to you is disgusting, and un-American. Don't care what your religion has to say about it, you should not be allowed to deny rights to specific groups of Americans who harm no one.

And where in the New Testment does Jesus speak against homosexuality?

burninater
6809
Points
burninater 06/29/11 - 12:09 pm
0
1

MJ you are correct, Mr. Wylds

MJ you are correct, Mr. Wylds did not say that gays were pedophiles. What he DID say was that the gay lifestyle, and the pedophile lifestyle, should be treated with equal legitimacy in the legal sense. There is no rational basis for this commonly held view. To make an analogy, it is like saying that if we are going to admit that hamburgers are an acceptable alternative to pizza, then cyanide must also be an allowable alternative. Utter nonsense. (I hope this doesn't make me a Christian-basher).

RunningMan
346
Points
RunningMan 06/29/11 - 12:14 pm
0
0

Why not just say they are a

Why not just say they are a child of God and pray for them as we would someone who lies and cheats, someone who kill a family member, someone that lives with multiple wives, or someone that claims to be a christian, however acts otherwise. Jesus tolerated all kinds of individuals, both believes and non believes. I strongly suggest we learn how to do the same. Publishing a letter in the AC is not going to change them one bit.

allhans
21955
Points
allhans 06/29/11 - 01:22 pm
0
0

I can't imagine wanting to be

I can't imagine wanting to be "tolerated". Sounds rather demeaning to me.

southernguy08
415
Points
southernguy08 06/29/11 - 02:18 pm
0
0

EEL, unless I'm mistaken, our

Unpublished

EEL, unless I'm mistaken, our rights as Americans say we don't have to accept any lifestyle we find offensive. This includes the "alternative" lifestyle. Sorry if you think rights only belong to people who think like you.

Iwannakno
1533
Points
Iwannakno 06/29/11 - 02:21 pm
0
0

So if voters in this country

Unpublished

So if voters in this country (which a majority are white) vote to reinstate slavery, blacks should just accept it because that's what the majority says? How about this concept. How about we pass no laws based purely on the Christian faith unless we are willing to accept Sharia, Muslim and Jewish laws as well? I would rather we pass laws that don't infringe on the rights of others because of someone else's beliefs. A few come to mind....gay marriage, purchasing alcohol on Sunday just to name 2.

burninater
6809
Points
burninater 06/29/11 - 02:41 pm
0
1

EEL, unless I'm mistaken, our

EEL, unless I'm mistaken, our rights as Americans say we don't have to accept any lifestyle we find offensive.
---
Depends on what you mean by "accept", southern. If you mean you don't have to like or understand it, you're 100% correct. If you mean that based on your personal opinion you get to decide which civil liberties apply to which individuals, you're going to have a much harder time finding a Constititionsl basis for your actions.

I think that's why opponents to gay activism need to resort to pedophile and dog marriage references -- from a rights perspective, they've got nothing to work with.

burninater
6809
Points
burninater 06/29/11 - 02:47 pm
0
0

*Constitutional

*Constitutional

southernguy08
415
Points
southernguy08 06/29/11 - 03:37 pm
0
0

BURN, if I find the actions

Unpublished

BURN, if I find the actions of the KKK offensive and don't want to interact with a member of that group, I have that right. If I find the actions of the Black Panthers offensive and don't want to interact with them, I have that right. If I find the Nazi Party offensive and don't want to interact with a member, I have that right. If I find the "alternative" lifestyle offensive and don't want to interact with gays, I have that right. Am I being clear here? I never said anything about denying any of them rights. But too many liberals are saying that I must accept gays, which, according to my understanding of my rights, is not true. Sorry if you don't like that, but you have that right too.

burninater
6809
Points
burninater 06/29/11 - 04:02 pm
0
1

I may be misanalyzing this,

I may be misanalyzing this, but it seems like the trigger here is EEL's (and many others') contention that if you reject homosexuality, then you are homophobic. Well, let's look at this from another perspective. If I disagree with the KKK, refuse to consort with them in any way, and liken their lifestyle to pedophilia and marrying dogs, am I KKKphobic? Yes. Does that KKKphobia necessitate that I therefore want to limit their rights? No. Should I be surprised and offended if I publicly compare a KKK member to a pedophile and a dog marryer, and the KKK member responds with outrage? Come on southern, you're smarter than that. Mr. Wylds set out to do more than just say "I don't accept the gay lifestyle," and EEL called him on it. This exchange isn't part of an attempt to force you to believe a certain way, it's simply a case of one person being uncivil, and others responding to it. Maybe "acceptance" would be better called "civility"...

Chillen
16
Points
Chillen 06/29/11 - 04:22 pm
0
0

You choose to be a KKK

You choose to be a KKK member. You don't choose to be homosexual (95% of the time).

Personally, I don't want to be in either group but I'm OK with them having their rights as long as they don't infringe on my rights.

burninater
6809
Points
burninater 06/29/11 - 04:31 pm
0
0

Good point about choice

Good point about choice Chillen, I mostly agree, although when you look at how much parents and environment influence a person's beliefs, I have to think that at least some KKK members probably didn't have a choice in any real sense.

southernguy08
415
Points
southernguy08 06/29/11 - 09:15 pm
0
0

CHILLEN, I 'm okay with them

Unpublished

CHILLEN, I 'm okay with them having rights too. My point is, unless BURN, EEL, and others who are criticizing Mr. Wylds have the ability to see into his mind, who are we to judge him?

broad street narrow mind
348
Points
broad street narrow mind 06/30/11 - 01:07 am
0
0

if mr wylds's letter doesn't

Unpublished

if mr wylds's letter doesn't let us see into his mind, he didn't do it right.

Back to Top

Top headlines

New chair gets vet off-road to fish

Army veteran Henry Kent's new Action Trackchair has attachments for fishing, with a holder for his fishing pole and a built-in tackle box, but others can be outfitted with gunracks for hunting.
Loading...