I still don't understand the coli's problem with gays.
Though
the-coli is where hyperbole is paramount, it's not that hard to understand.
While I subscribe to biblical principles and don't condone homosexuality (
yes, I do believe ppl can be born homosexual), I do have compassion for what they go through.
But, as a theist, I can't go to an atheist and ask;
what's your problem with my belief, what I do is no issue to you? Well, it is. A lot of public policy is decided with religious bias and ppl are outcast, in many parts of the country, for their position as atheist.
No dissent is acceptable, they are generalized and dialogue is discouraged.
The same can be said for
people who don't "accept" and "tolerate" homosexuality.
Now, I understand; comparing theists and people who don't' support the gay cause (they are not all homophobic [the fear of homosexuals]) sounds like a stretch. I will not disagree.
But, it's the same principal.
Without that dialogue; everyone--whether it's the perception or reality--is operating on the fringes of the argument.
- For it? You're a liberal heretic, who is an abomination to the Most High, who is going to burn for eternity
- Against it? You're an ignorant, religious zealot, knuckle dragging, close-minded bigot
In short; there's no real discussion about homosexuality. It's just;
"get with the times" or
"this marks to the downfall of society."
Myself; I feel it is hypocritical of religious organizations to target homosexuals as the worst of the worst. At the same; they're afraid to speak truth to power and go after greedy and selfish bankers who, literally, stole from countless people. That goes for other sin that doesn't get the same amount of fight, but, directly effects more people (ie. systemic poverty, homelessness, the lack of health care, etc.). I have to understand that may be more political, than religious.
I also feel it's unreasonable to expect me to change my beliefs because it offends you.
I don't get too passionate about gay rights. I feel homosexuals and their supporters feel so indignantly because sex has been separated from conception.
Sex is viewed as solely a tool of pleasure and for conception, secondly. And you can literally birth a child with a machine.
If two people want to have a sexual relationship, what's the problem?
And that idea has be promoted by heterosexuals of society. I feel this is where it goes.
I don't agree it's fine that two men with the same penis, testicles and sperm, as I, want to share those fluids with each other. I feel the urge to do so with a woman--one who has a vagina and eggs.
I do believe it naturally occurs. I do feel, in some case it's a nurtured action based in decadence and hedonism (see
prison rape and seasonal lesbianism.
I don't buy it's
"normal." Human do not asexuality reproduce.
This is my opinion.
But, that is lost on a lot of ppl because
sex = pleasure is where society stands--a society headed by heterosexual men.
"Adam and Steve" can't make a child, so how do they make a nuclear family that includes progeny with the DNA of both parents?
There's a bunch of
"un-natural" ways, so it's viewed as "normal" or, the fight is that, it should be.
Look, I'm not rallying against
"un-natural" anything.
I don't see the problem with ppl adopting and I really don't have a stance on invetro birth [forgive my spelling].
But, my point is the homosexual cause is starting to do some bullying, it's fighting again, of it's own, as if we all have done them wrong--even if we come out neutral on the issue.
The "slippery slope" exists when it's not clear what counts as good enough protection and what is just unfair to ask for a minority of students. And then it becomes a burden, mostly, on those you have nothing to do with policy (ie teachers, students, other staff).
How about u stop being a fvcking c00n 
