I'm trying to be understanding. I want to be able to see other perspectives other than my own. But when it comes to the barrage of 'gay' discussions I'm losing ground. My issue is if someone states their opinion which is different that someone else (not mean or vindictive words - just opinion) then many times they are called people of 'hate' or 'discriminate or 'intolerant'. I know I've lost my mind when I say this -but can't we simply say, "I'm not in agreement' without throwing around such harsh words that have the wrong application. Sheeeshhhh.....

My issue with it (im pro gay) is that people feel the need to force their opinions on others and like to dictate how others live their lives. Shouldnt one citizen be able to enjoy the same benefits as every other citizen?

So when someone thinks that others dont deserve the same rights that they have they are being intolerant, discriminating, and that shows hate.


As far as the whole gay marriage thing goes, if you want to protect the "sanctity" marriage...well there are more than enough examples out there where people have used and abused the sh*t out of it.

I don't even talk about it because I'm either bashed by gays or by straights for having a different opinion than them. It's a pointless debate because gays will do what they do and straights will do what they do, no matter who's pro or anti or what anyone else says. As long as gays don't shove their business down my throat then I can live with them whether I'm pro or anti.

I'm trying to be understanding. I want to be able to see other perspectives other than my own. But when it comes to the barrage of 'gay' discussions I'm losing ground. My issue is if someone states their opinion which is different that someone else (not mean or vindictive words - just opinion) then many times they are called people of 'hate' or 'discriminate or 'intolerant'. I know I've lost my mind when I say this -but can't we simply say, "I'm not in agreement' without throwing around such harsh words that have the wrong application. Sheeeshhhh.....


The problem is that this isn't a hypothetical situation or an exercise. There are real people affected by these laws and beliefs that, in their mind even if one doesn't agree, limit their rights and oppress their freedom. Even if an "anti-gay" person treats a homosexual man or woman the same as one would any other human being, that person is still agreeing with people who would take that same man or woman's rights away. Suppose, for example, we're back in the '60s. Perhaps someone treats black people respectfully and kindly, but also on an ideological level agrees in segregation and whatnot and votes accordingly. Would you still agree that "discriminate" is misapplied? Would you be comfortable telling an African-American man or woman in that situation you're "not in agreement" with their rights as you apparently are with a homosexual man or woman?

Brief disclaimer: you may or may not agree that the comparison with the civil rights movement in the '60s is apt, but homosexual men and women and the people who support homosexual rights do feel the comparison is apt. That is why words such as "hat" and "discriminate" and "intolerant" are thrown around. If someone is uncomfortable with those words being used, they should maybe re-evaluate their own thoughts on the subject.



I don't even talk about it because I'm either bashed by gays or by straights for having a different opinion than them. It's a pointless debate because gays will do what they do and straights will do what they do, no matter who's pro or anti or what anyone else says. As long as gays don't shove their business down my throat then I can live with them whether I'm pro or anti.


The problem comes in how do you decide when a "gay" is shoving their business down you throat. If two men are walking in a park hand in hand, are they then shoving their business down your throat? If they share a quick kiss, as any couple might, are they then shoving their business down your throat?

The problem comes in how do you decide when a "gay" is shoving their business down you throat. If two men are walking in a park hand in hand, are they then shoving their business down your throat? If they share a quick kiss, as any couple might, are they then shoving their business down your throat?

No, they're doing as they wish without doing it to get a rise out of me. I have a gay uncle and two gay cousins and I see them no less than once a week but they have never gone out of their way to make me feel awkward and I haven't gone out of my way to make them feel awkward when I have a girl with me. What I consider shoving their business down my throat is also what I consider a man and woman shoving their business down my throat, some things are better left at home and not in public.

I don't want to see a man and man making out (or girl and girl), I don't want to see a man and woman making out. It's just things like that. I don't mind if they hold hands, share a kiss or any of that stuff as I would do the same if I am with someone I am in a relationship with or close to being in a relationship with, nor do I care if two straight people do the same. It goes hand in hand for me, just keep it G-rated (I would say PG but even PG can get pretty nasty now, lol) and you won't hear me complaining.

Perhaps the issue in all of this is lack of respect. You can have a difference of opinion and still respect the opposing viewpoint....right? Or is that not possible? Its tragic and creating a very hostile environment when there is so much disrespect from news talk shows to political rallies. I just wish our hearts would lean toward respect instead of lashing out with very powerful words that are being tossed about without understanding the gravity of those words to inflict pain.

Perhaps the issue in all of this is lack of respect. You can have a difference of opinion and still respect the opposing viewpoint....right? Or is that not possible? Its tragic and creating a very hostile environment when there is so much disrespect from news talk shows to political rallies. I just wish our hearts would lean toward respect instead of lashing out with very powerful words that are being tossed about without understanding the gravity of those words to inflict pain.

Many have forgotten the Golden Rule which is probably the most important thing when dealing with others. You don't have to approve or like them, just respect them and move on. MDot hit on the nose when it comes to my feelings on the thing. I have gay friends and my last couple bosses were also gay, but they have never crossed a line or preached about an agenda to anyone.

There is a total lack of respect these days though. We see it in the media and society at large. People think it is okay to treat others like dirt because there won't be any repercussions. I'm not really sure what we can really do to turn things around. I've always been a fan of chaining people down and tearing off finger nails, but maybe i'm watching too many medieval/fantasy/historic shows on HBO & Showtime. LOL

I think people get offended to easily these days. Believe what you want to believe provided you respect others and their beliefs.

MY definition of intolerant is refusing to respect others for what they believe. Intolerant does not mean the person disagrees with your point of view. I have yet to come across anyone in real world these days that does not make a reasonable effort to respect anyone they come in to contact with where ever they are.

There is no reason for all of us to agree on everything. If we all agreed on everything the world would be bland and dull. We needed disagreement in our world because in the realm of disagreement comes compromise from logical thinking people. Out of compromise comes new ideas and easier ways to do things.

The government and society could kill this whole marriage argument by getting rid of the incentives to be married. Don't license it. Don't give any benefits for it. You should be married because you love and care about someone to where you want to spend the rest of your life with them. Marriage should never be based on benefits. It should be on what two people bring to the table for each other. Marriage should be ceremonial among those who are a part of it. Government should have nothing to do with it.

The only people who would not like the deregulation of marriage is lawyers and private investigators who chase cheating spouses.

You could have cohabitation benefits in it's place.

I say all this as married man, I am married to my wife because I love her, I love being around her and I would do anything for her. I am not married to her because of the tax benefits, insurance or any other reason.

Honestly, If I were a part of a gay couple and could not marry. I would fight back by promoting legislation that made marriage harder for heterosexual couples. After all I don't think you should be allowed to marry until you have been together for at least 2 years, went through premarital counseling and proved you new everything about the person you where going to marry.

The government and society could kill this whole marriage argument by getting rid of the incentives to be married. Don't license it. Don't give any benefits for it. You should be married because you love and care about someone to where you want to spend the rest of your life with them. Marriage should never be based on benefits. It should be on what two people bring to the table for each other. Marriage should be ceremonial among those who are a part of it. Government should have nothing to do with it.

The only people who would not like the deregulation of marriage is lawyers and private investigators who chase cheating spouses.

You could have cohabitation benefits in it's place.
Oneforone,
Excellent, post. The above particularly. I have always thought cohabitation benefits should be available, even though I have never been in a position to need them.
C. T.

I'm trying to be understanding. I want to be able to see other perspectives other than my own. But when it comes to the barrage of 'gay' discussions I'm losing ground. My issue is if someone states their opinion which is different that someone else (not mean or vindictive words - just opinion) then many times they are called people of 'hate' or 'discriminate or 'intolerant'. I know I've lost my mind when I say this -but can't we simply say, "I'm not in agreement' without throwing around such harsh words that have the wrong application. Sheeeshhhh.....
This is an interesting question and one that shows great character in its quest to find a way to coexist peacefully with others of differing opinions.

There are people on all sides of any issue who do not want to hear a differeing opinion. It takes diplomacy and patience to enter into discussions with these sorts of entrenched possitions and I've found it just isn't worth tryng to hold a discussion often enough. Some folks are so entrenched in thier beliefs that even if you have a 99% agreement, that last part will arouse thier defensiveness as much as if you disagree 100%. There's no discussion in situations like this and that is a shame.

"I have a different perspective on that," or "I'm not quite comfortable with that position" are sort of trial balloons I use to gauge if a person wants a discussion or if they want to fight. I'm not interested in fighting but I can discuss any subject without getting emotional.

Many have forgotten the Golden Rule which is probably the most important thing when dealing with others. You don't have to approve or like them, just respect them and move on. MDot hit on the nose when it comes to my feelings on the thing. I have gay friends and my last couple bosses were also gay, but they have never crossed a line or preached about an agenda to anyone.

There is a total lack of respect these days though. We see it in the media and society at large. People think it is okay to treat others like dirt because there won't be any repercussions. I'm not really sure what we can really do to turn things around. I've always been a fan of chaining people down and tearing off finger nails, but maybe i'm watching too many medieval/fantasy/historic shows on HBO & Showtime. LOL

+1

The government and society could kill this whole marriage argument by getting rid of the incentives to be married. Don't license it. Don't give any benefits for it. You should be married because you love and care about someone to where you want to spend the rest of your life with them. Marriage should never be based on benefits. It should be on what two people bring to the table for each other. Marriage should be ceremonial among those who are a part of it. Government should have nothing to do with it.

The only people who would not like the deregulation of marriage is lawyers and private investigators who chase cheating spouses.

You could have cohabitation benefits in it's place.

I say all this as married man, I am married to my wife because I love her, I love being around her and I would do anything for her. I am not married to her because of the tax benefits, insurance or any other reason.


Don't forget that it's not just because of the tax benefits. Things like hospital visitation rights, end of life decisions and spousal inheritance are major issues. Not being able to visit a life partner, or having the house you've lived in for 30 years taken away by greedy family is a big problem for a lot of gay couples.

The problem is that this isn't a hypothetical situation or an exercise. There are real people affected by these laws and beliefs that, in their mind even if one doesn't agree, limit their rights and oppress their freedom. Even if an "anti-gay" person treats a homosexual man or woman the same as one would any other human being, that person is still agreeing with people who would take that same man or woman's rights away. Suppose, for example, we're back in the '60s. Perhaps someone treats black people respectfully and kindly, but also on an ideological level agrees in segregation and whatnot and votes accordingly. Would you still agree that "discriminate" is misapplied? Would you be comfortable telling an African-American man or woman in that situation you're "not in agreement" with their rights as you apparently are with a homosexual man or woman?

Brief disclaimer: you may or may not agree that the comparison with the civil rights movement in the '60s is apt, but homosexual men and women and the people who support homosexual rights do feel the comparison is apt. That is why words such as "hat" and "discriminate" and "intolerant" are thrown around. If someone is uncomfortable with those words being used, they should maybe re-evaluate their own thoughts on the subject.





The problem comes in how do you decide when a "gay" is shoving their business down you throat. If two men are walking in a park hand in hand, are they then shoving their business down your throat? If they share a quick kiss, as any couple might, are they then shoving their business down your throat?

+1

This is an interesting question and one that shows great character in its quest to find a way to coexist peacefully with others of differing opinions.

There are people on all sides of any issue who do not want to hear a differeing opinion. It takes diplomacy and patience to enter into discussions with these sorts of entrenched possitions and I've found it just isn't worth tryng to hold a discussion often enough. Some folks are so entrenched in thier beliefs that even if you have a 99% agreement, that last part will arouse thier defensiveness as much as if you disagree 100%. There's no discussion in situations like this and that is a shame.

"I have a different perspective on that," or "I'm not quite comfortable with that position" are sort of trial balloons I use to gauge if a person wants a discussion or if they want to fight. I'm not interested in fighting but I can discuss any subject without getting emotional.

+1

I'm trying to be understanding. I want to be able to see other perspectives other than my own. But when it comes to the barrage of 'gay' discussions I'm losing ground. My issue is if someone states their opinion which is different that someone else (not mean or vindictive words - just opinion) then many times they are called people of 'hate' or 'discriminate or 'intolerant'. I know I've lost my mind when I say this -but can't we simply say, "I'm not in agreement' without throwing around such harsh words that have the wrong application. Sheeeshhhh.....

It surely goes back to childhood and peer pressure. In order to be in with the other kids you had to be anti-gay or act like you hated them. Not every child back then, though, saw much point back in hating gays.

In my college government class, we had a group debate on the legalization of gay marriage. I was in the pro- group. It became less of a debate and more of a one-sided shouting match, with the most vocal member of the anti- group becoming rather animated and shouting about how the countries in which gay marriage was legalized, they PISS IN THE STREETS! I KNOW, I'VE BEEN THERE! (speaking of the Netherlands). Despite the irrelevance of whether or not people piss in the streets of Amsterdam (clearly he hasn't spent any time in the downtown sections of major US cities), the shouting was telling of the emotional involvement that people have for something that doesn't involve them whatsoever.

Really, as stated above, for many people this is rhetoric, but there are real people who are affected by this in very real ways. That's a neglected fact. It usually tends to be straight people arguing with straight people about what rights gay people should have. That's why I agree that if we won't open marriage up to all people, then we should strip marriage of any sort of government sanctioned benefits. There's nothing 'traditional' about marrying for tax reasons, and it shouldn't be required to be legally married to be able to make important decisions (pulling the plug, etc.).

Let the officiant decide if he wants to marry a gay couple. Straight people don't have to watch if they don't want, but it's definitely a least-harm move to allow willing parties to take part in a gay marriage

And I too have noticed the politics section degenerate into this childish scene of name calling and insults from both sides. The only good it accomplishes is making the guilty participants look like very small people.

I don't even talk about it because I'm either bashed by gays or by straights for having a different opinion than them. It's a pointless debate because gays will do what they do and straights will do what they do, no matter who's pro or anti or what anyone else says. As long as gays don't shove their business down my throat then I can live with them whether I'm pro or anti.

No discussions are pointless IMO.

Perhaps the issue in all of this is lack of respect. You can have a difference of opinion and still respect the opposing viewpoint....right? Or is that not possible? Its tragic and creating a very hostile environment when there is so much disrespect from news talk shows to political rallies. I just wish our hearts would lean toward respect instead of lashing out with very powerful words that are being tossed about without understanding the gravity of those words to inflict pain.
That depends on how they frame it.
If someone says that they don't believe homosexuals are living the right lifestyle then I don't really have an issue with them.
If someone says that homosexuals should be legally restricted from living their chosen lifestyle then I'll probably ask them for a reason.
If their reason is that homosexuals rights should be restricted because of some untrue assumption about homosexuals then I'm probably going to try and correct them. We can't "agree to disagree" about stuff that just isn't true. You know?

No discussions are pointless IMO.

I agree for the most part but this one is. It's a fun debate if you're open to other sides of the story but if you're not (like most people including just about everyone I've ever tried to have a civil discussion with about it) then there is no point because you won't change their minds and they probably won't even consider what you say, no matter how well presented your counter-argument is.

However, I can understand, and encourage, someone debating it if it's a priority for them to try and change everyone's mind on the matter. Maybe it's just a pointless topic to me because of my first and second-hand experience with it.

That depends on how they frame it.
If someone says that they don't believe homosexuals are living the right lifestyle then I don't really have an issue with them.
If someone says that homosexuals should be legally restricted from living their chosen lifestyle then I'll probably ask them for a reason.
If their reason is that homosexuals rights should be restricted because of some untrue assumption about homosexuals then I'm probably going to try and correct them. We can't "agree to disagree" about stuff that just isn't true. You know?

Agreed, strongly.

As several have quoted on the subject of gay marriage..... "I believe they should be just as miserable as the rest of us."

The resolution would be so simple if people just learned to mind their own business.