Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree...we will never see eye to eye...I just do not understand why a persons personal life should be open for examination...I am not homosexual but I feel there is a constant invasion of privacy. No one cares what I do in my bedroom why should their lives be open for public consumption? It is a very sad thing we cannot learn to live side by side together.
Not that my experience is evidence of the norm, but in every encounter I have had with homosexuality be it work, through friends friends, etc... the issue was always brought up by them, encouraged by them, and persisted by them.
I once had a coworker bring the issue up. I told them I was not interested in discussing this issue as the topic of politics, religion and similar personal positions on those issues are not appropriate for work place discussions. They continued to persist, insisted I give my opinion on homosexuality and pushed to the point of accusing me of being homophobic for not wanting to comment on it. When I finally did, I told them I do not agree with it, but their personal lives are their own business, my only concern at the work place is my work to which I am paid to do to the best of my ability.
Even that slightest respectful answer was not good enough and from then on, I was viewed in a often hostile way by this person (which is why I hate discussing this stuff at the work place and the irony of his actions were evidence of this) with him making snide comments and various personal attacks of subtle nature.
So as I said, in my experience this has been the norm with my relations with those who either support it or are it. I did not ask for them to bring their private lives to me, they persisted to do that on their own and many like me see this as the same thing when it is made such an issue to the public concerning issues of marriage.
I do not wish to accept homosexuality, nor will I view it as anything other than a sin, a conflict of natural progression. That does not mean I have hate or fear for those that do, I just wish not to be a part of it nor be forced to accept it as correct or right. I respect their choice to be as they wish, I expect them to respect my right to be as I wish.
The position of marriage in terms of the legal issues is nothing more than a forced definitional change to enforce an acceptance on the people. The "rights" that are of concern can be achieved by properly adjusting the conditions of civil unions to receive the same level of legal relationships as marriage which is exactly what they were created for. If those who want it to be called marriage, then they can do so of their own need to, but forcing the language to accept this change is nothing more than forcing the people to accept it.
Well, perhaps I should take your approach to discussing the issue as I can see I will not ever get a point across. Thank you for your thoughful response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Not that my experience is evidence of the norm, but in every encounter I have had with homosexuality be it work, through friends friends, etc... the issue was always brought up by them, encouraged by them, and persisted by them.
I once had a coworker bring the issue up. I told them I was not interested in discussing this issue as the topic of politics, religion and similar personal positions on those issues are not appropriate for work place discussions. They continued to persist, insisted I give my opinion on homosexuality and pushed to the point of accusing me of being homophobic for not wanting to comment on it. When I finally did, I told them I do not agree with it, but their personal lives are their own business, my only concern at the work place is my work to which I am paid to do to the best of my ability.
Even that slightest respectful answer was not good enough and from then on, I was viewed in a often hostile way by this person (which is why I hate discussing this stuff at the work place and the irony of his actions was evidence of this) with him making snide comments and various personal attacks of subtle nature.
So as I said, in my experience this has been the norm with my relations with those who either support it or are it. I did not ask for them to bring their private lives to me, they persisted to do that on their own and many like me see this as the same thing when it is made such an issue to the public concerning issues of marriage.
I do not wish to accept homosexuality, nor will I view it as anything other than a sin, a conflict of natural progression. That does not mean I have hate or fear for those that do, I just wish not to be a part of it nor be forced to accept it as correct or right. I respect their choice to be as they wish, I expect them to respect my right to be as I wish.
The position of marriage in terms of the legal issues is nothing more than a forced definitional change to enforce an acceptance on the people. The "rights" that are of concern can be achieved by properly adjusting the conditions of civil unions to receive the same level of legal relationships as marriage which is exactly what they were created for. If those who want it to be called marriage, then they can do so of their own need to, but forcing the language to accept this change is nothing more than forcing the people to accept it.
Maybe if the gay community stopped making such a big deal out of their lifestyle it would cease to be such a big public issue.
There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle". Gays live in exactly the same diversity of lifestyles as straights do. You don't even know who half of them are. They sit next to you in the pew at church. You vote for them for town council. They coach your kid's soccer team. They are in every other respect identical to straights except for finding themselves attracted to the same gender. That's it. That's all. Otherwise, gays and straights are two peas in a pod...
The position of marriage in terms of the legal issues is nothing more than a forced definitional change to enforce an acceptance on the people. The "rights" that are of concern can be achieved by properly adjusting the conditions of civil unions to receive the same level of legal relationships as marriage which is exactly what they were created for. If those who want it to be called marriage, then they can do so of their own need to, but forcing the language to accept this change is nothing more than forcing the people to accept it.
You are claiming that to which you have no title. Marriage is an entirely civil function, defined and administered by the state. There is no religious component to it at all. The state may not discriminate against citizens except in protection of a legitimate state interest. There is no legitimate state interest threatened by gay marriage. Churches may continue to deny their own rites and sacraments as they may choose, but the standards for those have no place in civil law...
Please tell me how anyone could say there is any violence on this thread? That is ridiculous.
If CD threads caused me physical harm, I would be sure to stop visiting the site. And like I said to Happy Cells, probably see about getting a new computer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
