Gay

[Shadow Wolf]

I likewise do not feel the need or desire to interact with homosexuals on any level.

Wow. That is just sad. Not wanting to interact with someone who you disagree with is a good solid definition of prejudice, and would lead to a very lonely and isolated life.

It would indeed be a waste of your time to argue over the rightness or wrongness of your lifestyle with someone like myself who sees the world much differently.

Actually, you may call it a waste of time, but more and more Americans support homosexual rights with each passing year. You and yours a dying breed.

 

[Marisa]

In defense of elijoe, I don't think he believes homosexuals are looking for his support and approval, as you imply. He's merely expressing his stance on homosexuality, just like you might express your dislike for gun control. Those who are against gun control really don't need your support of approval---and may not even want it---but this doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to express your view without being criticized for it.


.

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying people should be able to express their opinions in a public forum without having that opinion scrutinized?

 

[jojom]

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying people should be able to express their opinions in a public forum without having that opinion scrutinized?

No. I think Shadow Wolf's remark, "And who said homosexuals need or want your support and approval any ways?" was ill conceived.


.

 

[Riverwolf]

I likewise do not feel the need or desire to interact with homosexuals on any level.

But you just did.

 

[ether-ore]

Wow. That is just sad. Not wanting to interact with someone who you disagree with is a good solid definition of prejudice, and would lead to a very lonely and isolated life.

Actually, you may call it a waste of time, but more and more Americans support homosexual rights with each passing year. You and yours a dying breed.

Not so isolated as you seem to think and I never said that homosexuals didn't have rights which shouldn't be protected. I did in fact say that we both live in a country where we are protected by the same laws while living in different worlds. The op indicated that someone who disagreed with him was not worthy of attention. I was just agreeing with his sentiments. Are there not people with whom you would not prefer to associate with on a social level (hmmm... I'm thinking... myself? ) I do in fact believe that the rights of homosexuals should be protected. I'm simply saying that that does not constitute a need for me to interact with someone who's overt activities (and if they weren't overt, we wouldn't be having this discussion)... who's overt activities I find disgusting.

 

[ether-ore]

But you just did.

Cute <grin>. I don't consider responding to a post in a forum such as this as constituting any kind of social interaction; especially since things said in here are anonymous... well... except maybe for the NSA <grin> ((we are watching and we know who you are and where you live and at some point, in the middle of the night... they're coming to take you away... ha ha he he)) It is all part of the thought police as is evidenced by the responses to my opinion. I was actually banned from another forum for simply expressing this opinion. ((we can't stand to hear dissenting opinions)) And no, I'm not indulging in policing thought. It is the physical activity and the attention whore need to draw attention to it that I find repugnant.

 

[Pudding]

Not so isolated as you seem to think and I never said that homosexuals didn't have rights which shouldn't be protected. I did in fact say that we both live in a country where we are protected by the same laws while living in different worlds. The op indicated that someone who disagreed with him was not worthy of attention. I was just agreeing with his sentiments. Are there not people with whom you would not prefer to associate with on a social level (hmmm... I'm thinking... myself? ) I do in fact believe that the rights of homosexuals should be protected. I'm simply saying that that does not constitute a need for me to interact with someone who's overt activities (and if they weren't overt, we wouldn't be having this discussion)... who's overt activities I find disgusting.

Cute <grin>. I don't consider responding to a post in a forum such as this as constituting any kind of social interaction; especially since things said in here are anonymous... well... except maybe for the NSA <grin> ((we are watching and we know who you are and where you live and at some point, in the middle of the night... they're coming to take you away... ha ha he he)) It is all part of the thought police as is evidenced by the responses to my opinion. I was actually banned from another forum for simply expressing this opinion. ((we can't stand to hear dissenting opinions)) And no, I'm not indulging in policing thought. It is the physical activity and the attention whore need to draw attention to it that I find repugnant.

If the opinion you express which dissenting by them, and your opinion means insulting people, i think that is a reasonable reason for that forum to banned you.

But then you'll say you're not insulting people but only express your fair opinion, right?

 

[Riverwolf]

Cute <grin>. I don't consider responding to a post in a forum such as this as constituting any kind of social interaction; especially since things said in here are anonymous... well... except maybe for the NSA <grin> ((we are watching and we know who you are and where you live and at some point, in the middle of the night... they're coming to take you away... ha ha he he)) It is all part of the thought police as is evidenced by the responses to my opinion. I was actually banned from another forum for simply expressing this opinion. ((we can't stand to hear dissenting opinions)) And no, I'm not indulging in policing thought. It is the physical activity and the attention whore need to draw attention to it that I find repugnant.

I find it repugnant that you're applying the term "thought police" to this sort of thing, devaluing the severity of what George Orwell was writing about. Nobody is policing your thought, because you're not going to jail for thinking things.

Attention needed to be drawn to it so people who are not heterosexual can have whatever relationships they want without fear of being killed. If you truly believe that gay peoples' rights should be protected, then you overcame your repulsion in order to do that.

One of my dearest friends is a sex-repulsed asexual; he finds all sex as disgusting as you find homosexual sex. We can still be dear friends, even though I'm not ace.

 

[Marisa]

No. I think Shadow Wolf's remark, "And who said homosexuals need or want your support and approval any ways?" was ill conceived.


.

I said the same thing. Thing is, when we put our thoughts out for public consumption, that's ecpxactly what tends to happen.

 

[Marisa]

Cute <grin>. I don't consider responding to a post in a forum such as this as constituting any kind of social interaction; especially since things said in here are anonymous... well... except maybe for the NSA <grin> ((we are watching and we know who you are and where you live and at some point, in the middle of the night... they're coming to take you away... ha ha he he)) It is all part of the thought police as is evidenced by the responses to my opinion. I was actually banned from another forum for simply expressing this opinion. ((we can't stand to hear dissenting opinions)) And no, I'm not indulging in policing thought. It is the physical activity and the attention whore need to draw attention to it that I find repugnant.

If you don't want your thoughts examined by the general public, don't put them out for general consumption. If you've got the stones to say it, have the stones to take the fallout.

 

[ether-ore]

If you don't want your thoughts examined by the general public, don't put them out for general consumption. If you've got the stones to say it, have the stones to take the fallout.

I don't have a problem with my thoughts being examined or even disputed, it's the abuse of power used to silence the expression of those thoughts that I have issues with. I really don't think you understood my position if you felt such a comment was necessary or were you just looking for an opportunity to use the word "stones" in the form of feminist ridicule?

 

[ether-ore]

If the opinion you express which dissenting by them, and your opinion means insulting people, i think that is a reasonable reason for that forum to banned you.

But then you'll say you're not insulting people but only express your fair opinion, right?

Right, I think she's got it. My concerns with homosexuality, because they do not endorse the activity will likely sound insulting, but that is only because what I said is not liked and not because what I said is intrinsically insulting.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are there not people with whom you would not prefer to associate with on a social level (hmmm... I'm thinking... myself? )

The only people I don't like associating with are bigots and those who cause harm to another. Christians I don't mind, so long as they aren't using their faith as an excuse to discriminate.

I never said that homosexuals didn't have rights which shouldn't be protected.

I didn't say you did. However, I did say that public discourse about gay rights has shifted the public opinion to the point where it is today, where most Americans now favor homosexual marriage. This shows that the discussions are not a waste of time.

 

[ether-ore]

The only people I don't like associating with are bigots and those who cause harm to another. Christians I don't mind, so long as they aren't using their faith as an excuse to discriminate.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "discriminate". I reserve the right of association, which means for me that I am not obligated to support a lifestyle that goes against my own value system. I can see non-discrimination in terms of housing or employment with what I see as a justifiable exclusion on religious grounds. There are ample services available to homosexuals, such that they do not have to bother people of faith who choose not to support such activity.

I didn't say you did. However, I did say that public discourse about gay rights has shifted the public opinion to the point where it is today, where most Americans now favor homosexual marriage. This shows that the discussions are not a waste of time.

If I thought it was a waste of time, I wouldn't be participating here. The thing I object to is any attempt to silence opinions that homosexuals don't like. While I disagree with gay marriage, it has become a fact of life now and I won't dispute it... that would be a waste of time. I will maintain however, that it is the right of any pastor, preacher, bishop, etc. to refuse to perform such marriages; especially when homosexuals can go to a justice of the peace.

 

[Marisa]

I don't have a problem with my thoughts being examined or even disputed, it's the abuse of power used to silence the expression of those thoughts that I have issues with. I really don't think you understood my position if you felt such a comment was necessary or were you just looking for an opportunity to use the word "stones" in the form of feminist ridicule?

You expressed disconcertion with having your thoughts examined. It seems that, when examined, you resort to accusing the examiner of attempting to wile pence you. That tends to belie protestations of being free of problems.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I will maintain however, that it is the right of any pastor, preacher, bishop, etc. to refuse to perform such marriages; especially when homosexuals can go to a justice of the peace.

Because we have separation of church and state, it will remain so.

 

[Marisa]

Right, I think she's got it. My concerns with homosexuality, because they do not endorse the activity will likely sound insulting, but that is only because what I said is not liked and not because what I said is intrinsically insulting.

That totally depends on what you say. Go all Bryan Fischer and you're going to ruffle some feathers. But then Fischer's purpose is to be as insulting as possible, whereas he could just say "it's not for me" and be done with it.

 

[Marisa]

If I thought it was a waste of time, I wouldn't be participating here. The thing I object to is any attempt to silence opinions that homosexuals don't like. While I disagree with gay marriage, it has become a fact of life now and I won't dispute it... that would be a waste of time. I will maintain however, that it is the right of any pastor, preacher, bishop, etc. to refuse to perform such marriages; especially when homosexuals can go to a justice of the peace.

Nobody expects church officials to perform rites outside their interpretation of dogma. Considering how many are leaving the churches over social issues though, I predict much dogma regarding this issue in particular will fall out of favor.

 

[ether-ore]

You expressed disconcertion with having your thoughts examined. It seems that, when examined, you resort to accusing the examiner of attempting to wile pence you. That tends to belie protestations of being free of problems.

There is no good response to such observations so wide of the mark.

 

[Marisa]

There is no good response to such observations so wide of the mark.

That's okay. Agreement is not expected.