Neither does most of the news. We've already had that discussion.

This 'news' has nothing to do with pixel art or games... 

Nods, no I understood Rodahue. I didn't think you were projecting your own views. :P

Argh, this is so hard just using text. (For me at least.)

Just so try it word it better again, I'm saying our system is flawed, and because of that those who oppose same-sex marriage will eventually because they hold the current seat of power and because of deep-root beliefs they are not willing to make comprises.

Sorry if my comment was misintrepeted - it seems so by your replies. I tried to leave all personal views on the matter out, but alas, thats impossible. What I was trying to say is when it comes down to it, as far as same-sex marriage goes, the beliefs each side hold are so deep that neither can make a compramise. With the way the current system works, I believe the side with power - those who oppose it - will win out in the end.

If neither is willing to budge on their beliefs, and one has a power over the other - they'll use it. I'm sorry if it came out wrong.

Rodahue: I understand people who are against it for religious reasons. That's highly understandable and I have nothing but respect for that. But what they must realize is that our system allows other things against their religion such as divorce and marriage between a believer and a non believer. In the interest of equal right distribution, I'm afraid that the government must act in accordance with that regardless but respectful of religious beliefs just as much as it does with any other action against a religion. The government allows divorce, but doesn't force churches to recognize it. The government allows marriages of believers and non believers but doesn't force churches to recognize or even hold the ceremonies. Consistency is required here. No one is forcing anyone to believe anything here, but in the interest of granting rights, with all due respect, the government must either grant all consentual adult couples the rights of marriage or grant no rights at all in accordance with fairness.

And I likewise would agree with Sirius. I don't think you're a bigot if you believe what you believe. My belief is that a bigot is a person who holds their beliefs so high, they are intolerant of others' beliefs. You aren't a bad person for believing what you do or living your life in a certain way, IMO, but you are a bigot if you believe that everyone must live and be exactly like you.

I think if you break this down into liberasl vs. conservatives, your missing the point and once again falling into the trap that is our bipartisan system.  To me, the issue is this : Can people give up their negative feelings towards homosexuals/homosexual marriage, because they truly believe in freedom, and that all people are born equally.  Personally I never had a problem with it in the first place, but I like to believe that even if I did, I would have been able to set aside my beliefs, and realize I don't have the right to force my way of life, or my beliefs, onto others. 

To end I would like to make it clear that I do not think that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, or that they hate gays, or anything like that.  Obviously many do, but for a lot of people its something a lot less sinister.  So, I'm not accusing anyone of being a bad person.  Just encouraging them to let others share the same rights and happiness that they have been given.

What I've always found was that those who say "I don't care about it" are really saying: "I'm afraid to care about it." Afraid to take a side and take heat from the opposition. (Sorry if the above seems unrelated. It probably is.)

The majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage are seated in religious beliefs and have been raised in religious environments, and taught things such as

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." Leviticus 18:22


While those who support it feel as though everyone who opposes it are bigots. When it comes down to it, both sides are situated in feelings that generally cannot be swayed. Some fear that allowing same-sex marriage is allowing our country to sin more and more, and the other side fears giving in to the opposition is allowing bigotry to win.

Truth is, neither side will lay down arms and when it comes down to it - those in power will force their views on the other. In relation to this topic, those in power oppose same-sex marriage.

It doesn't really surprise me. Look what happened in San Francisco of all places.

Surprising that a liberal place like New York would rule against same-sex marraige. Go figure.

@JJ Max: I don't see anything wrong with placing my belief out there. You have the right to place your views out here just as much as I do.  Maybe the article isn't neutral, but it's not intolerant. It's not like it says, "Fuck those christians against us" or anything. If I believe in something truly and passionately, I should have the right to express it, regardless if it's neutral or not. I'm sorry you disagree with the viewpoint expressed, but just because you do disagree, doesn't make it intolerant.

And if you would have READ my full post, you would have seen that I added a bit on marriage rights in the U.S. in the FYI section. And of course, anyone asking questions or wanting more informaiton is free to comment or, dare I say it, do their own research. It's not as if I'm offering this up as the ONLY belief with no access to other information or prohibiting others to research other sides. I've done nothing but encourage that and be tolerant of other viewpoints while expressing my own.

I can understand your frustration completely. Liberals can be very bigoted about their opinions and beliefs and very rude to conservative people. This I truly realize. I would have no problems with people posting anti-gay marriage news bullteins. I can't say that I wouldn't debate the issue and I can't say that I would agree, but I would see no problems with it.

I apologize if you felt that I or anyone here is intolerant of you and your beliefs. I don't think we are. It's okay for us to disagree on certain issues. I think we're all mature enough to let it go and not hold grudges against eachother. I didn't mean for my post to discriminate or offend anyone of different opinions. I fully encourage anyone to voice their opinion, no matter how offensive other people may deam it. I don't believe in censoring people, even people who hold racist, sexist, etc. I can't say you can voice these without retaliation in our soceity, just as much as I can't expect no retaliation on my views. But do believe in tolerance and to me that means intolerance should be tolerated as well. I can't say what can and can't be approved on this website because I don't own it, but I do stand for the right of any and all people to express any of their beliefs, regardless of how much I may or may not agree with them.

Once again, I do apologize to anyone who's felt that I am trying to make people >*** Message has been truncated ***

Once again, I do apologize to anyone who's felt that I am trying to make people believe what I do. That truly isn't my intention. I have extensive knowledge on this issue in particular and I would be very willing to share any of it if people chose to ask.

Propaganda or not, I see no harm in trying to widen peoples perspective about humane issues. And I really don't see the reason behind your grudge against this article JJ, you obviously have an opinion on the subject and you're free to discuss it.

The great thing about communities is that thoughts and opinions are discussed. Imposing ideas on people challenges us to actually think about our beliefs, values, and stuff we might normally take for granted.

I doubt it would have, because that bill is very intollerant, bigoted, inhumane, and so on.  It is reverting us back to the 1950s racist movement

I highly doubt this story would have made it through if the title was "Vote YES on Federal Marraige Amendment"

"And Sedge, it's sad that the only viewpoints you will allow on this forum are what you call 'tolerant' ones."

Where do you get off saying that?  You are still here aren't you?   He hasn't banned you for having a "intolerant" viewpoint.

Toby, just FYI, propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. It has nothing to do with superiority.

And Sedge, it's sad that the only viewpoints you will allow on this forum are what you call 'tolerant' ones. So it seems the only thing you don't tolerate, is intolerance. I just wish all the news articles on my favorite pixel forum wouldn't always be so liberal. Thats all.

I fail to see how Aleiav's article was propaganda. Propaganda has a way of presenting something as superior to others, Aleiav was calling out to people for support in the gay marriage issue, not presenting gay marriage as superior to other types of marriage.

As Sedge has pointed out many times already, allowing same sex marriage is not taking something away from heterosexual couples, it's granting the same rights to gay couples as heterosexual couples have.

I agree that the post takes one view point.  It's clearly an opinion on an issue that is topical  so you are definitely right in that "news" isn't the most accurate description.  Most of the posts here are just thoughts on topics -- not news.  I'm happy to post any "propaganda" that promotes tolerance (there's that silly word again).

I understand that you don't like homosexuals and/or homosexual activity and you have every right to dislike them or anyone else at all for that matter, but no one should be able to deny law abiding citizens their rights.  

I think the main problem I have with the article itself is that it doesn't even try to present a peice of news in any nuetral sense. You blatantly tell people reading to 'vote no' on this pro-homosexual marraige bill. You say things like 'the work isn't over' and make assumptions as to the beliefs of the readers. Honestly, it's more propaganda than news.

And even though I know I'm in the conservative 2% of the population around here, at least a little bit of nuetrality would be nice.

sokay. I don't think the comments were meant for debating. :P

@big brother: I can understand the confusion around the consenting adult age. That's definately a grey area. I always hold a rule of thumb that a person should be mature enough to handle sexual activity, regardless of any age. Maturity is important in my opinion because being immature and sleeping with some could result in misunderstandings, fights, or worse, even AIDS due to lack of sexual protection knowledge (our sex ed in America is HORRID btw). But what constititues mature? I've met some very mature people under the age of 18 and some very immature people over the age of 18. I don't think there's anything the government can truly do to decide when a person is ready for sexual activity because it just depends on the person. Some people don't even realize they aren't ready untill they've done it. There's too many variables in a person's life to tell if they're going to be ready for anything sexual activity brings. So I think defining the age of consent at 18 is understandable Of course, people are going to break the law anyway, adult or not. But in comparison with burglary, shootings, and rape, I don't think the age of consent is something the government needs to keep huge tabs on. In the end it is our body and our sex life and people are going to make mistakes and hopefully they'll learn from them. I don't think the government can really do anything about it. Just set an age of consent and enforce it if you see anyone breaking it.

As far as the article, of course it's imposing a viewpoint on you, just like every other news article that's in the press. I'm not forcing anyone to believe what I do. In fact, I encourage you to go out and read other opinions so that you can formulate your own. That's why I encourage debating. Because lots of viewpionts come out and we can from that decide what we choose to believe.

grraag here's the rest:

And how can you compare gay marriage to genocide in Sudan? There's a clear difference there and one is uuuh... death. NO ONE is hurt by a gay marriage. The point I think Ensell was
making about not caring if it doesn't affect you was that you shouldn't care about the private lives of others if they are hurting no one. Obviously you SHOULD care about tsunami
victims and genocide because it's not a private personal choice and it's also bringing about death and hurting people. Again, gay marriage hurts no one.

My question to you is this? How do you know what's right and what's wrong other than your own feelings? There are many people who believe Americans are living a sinful life. Should
they be allowed to come here and force us to live just like they do just because they believe they are right? No. Because we should all be able to live the life we want to live
as long as we aren't hurting anybody, because our life is just that, our life.

@JJMaxx: See the difference between being gay and being a pedophile is that pedophiles don't give a damn about the consent of the person they're violating. If you're going to compare a sexual penchant for a certain type of sex to pedophilia than by the same logic, heterosexuals are the same as pedophiliacs as well because a penchant for the opposite sex is the same as a penchant for the same sex. But neither homo or heterosexuals are comparable to pedophiles. Pedophiles don't seek consentual relationships with children, they seek to trick them to use them. It's not about sex at all. It's about power and abuse.
That's like saying rape is a sexual penchant (which rape-like situations CAN be, but I would argue that that's not the same because it's understood by both parties that it is consentual and there is often a safe word you shout if it's getting too tough during heavy fetish play). Rape isn't about sex, it's about power and the same goes for any type of sexual abuse. Both parties in a homosexual and heterosexual relationship are consenting when they have sex. Sure, there's power in sex. I'd be stupid to say sex isn't at all about power because even the most vanilla sex is about power, but it's also about pleasure of both partners and enjoying that.  A sexually abusive relationship is in no way about pleasure for both parties, just for one at the expense of another. You can't compare pedophilia to homosexuality or even heterosexuality simply because of the lack of consent that often comes hand in hand with pedophilia. Now, you CAN have sexual penchant for youthness or even parental type of play in sex, which I see no problem with because it's none of my buisness. And I think people should explore things that they find sexually attractive, even if they're taboo, but consent is crucial, especially for fetish and roleplay type of stuff, because it's about trust. In the end, no matter what kind of festish or sexual liking you have, there should be a trust between you and your partner(s) that's not at all there during a sexually abusive relationship. That is not about trust, it's about violation and decit. I've personally experienced the difference.

And how can you compare gay marriage to genocide in Sudan? There's a clear difference there and one is uuuh... death. NO ONE is hurt by a gay marriage. The point I think Ensell was making about not caring if it doesn't affect you was that you s>*** Message has been truncated ***

I like your quote Sedge. Makes perfect sense.

@big brother:  Tolerance and support are definitely two different things. Tolerating each other's little differences (whether we support them or not) is what makes a free society tick.

@Larwick:  It's a pretty tired debate, but it's an important one for those who believe in that buzzword 'tolerance'.

Elie Wiesel (author of 'Night') has a terrific quote that always makes me think...

I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

Sorry if that's too preachy... it's just a nice sentiment.

I don't want to join any debate, just thought i'd say i really don't care whether homosexuals are allowed to get married in a church or not, because i'm not gay nor religeous. I would probably say i'd like them to be able to, just to stop all this debating over it.

Of course, the definition of consenting adults is arbitrary. Is a few days' difference between the age of a minor and her of-age partner really going to make the sexual act intolerable? How about if the minor is a year from 18? It's a gray issue that legislation has made clear-cut.

Tolerance is different than support. I show tolerance by not physically interfering with others' lifestyle choices. But I certainly don't support everything someone else feels is "right".

Does anyone else feel like the topic of this news post is imposing a viewpoint on you? Tolerance goes both ways. Unlike me. ;)

Polygamy is multiple marriage which has nothing to do with the debate at all so why bring it up? I had to look up dendropheliac on urban dictionary (sex with plants/trees is what I found).  That actually bothers you?  Why? Don't you ever think that's it's none of your business what someone does in their bedroom?  Comparing homosexuals (two consenting ADULTS) to pedophiles (one party cannot possibly consent to the act) is disturbing. 

Btw, I'm not sure what the heck point you were trying to make by mocking 'tolerance' and then claiming that you want a better tomorrow. Yikes.

You cannot disseminate gay people from polygamists, pedophiles or dendropheliacs. They are all people who 'feel' a certain way, sexually, toward another thing, with consent.

To me 'tolerance' is just societies way of melting down moral boundaries and blurring the line between right and wrong. Nowadays, if it doesn't affect me, then why should I care? Genocide in Darfur? Starvation in Haiti? Hurricanes in Louisiana? None of it affects me but I choose to care. I choose to take an active role in helping my world and my country have a better tomorrow. But of course you all think that a better tomorrow means letting everyone on the planet do whatever they want.

I am not religious but I support a persons right to believe in a higher power, whatever that may be, and practice it without banishment from their own country, imprisonment, or whatever the case may be.
I am not a activist but I do support anyone or any group that is fighting for public rights, or any cause of any sort as long as it is not violent or damaging to any race, religion, or sex.
I am not gay but I support a persons right to choose their own sexual identity and live according to it without prejudice or inquiry.
I am not an American but I like to think that there any many Americans who want something more for their country than what is being offered and see a brighter future - hippy love and all that.
I am not a waffle but I choose to support any waffles that find god and become the almighty jesus waffle.
In short, the world as a whole needs to open their minds and hearts to other peoples beliefs. Have some diginity and show some humility in knowing that there is a world beyond your own. This doesn't mean you have to live their life and their practices but, rather, would sit beside them without judgement and eat some good ol' fashioned jesus waffles.
'nuff said.

since this is turning into more an argument, i am going to more or less just leave my opinion then dash...

to all you people against gay marriage:  will 2 women/men getting married hurt you in anyway shape or form?  will it cause the universe to spin wildly then collapse into itself?  will 2 gay people getting married cause out goverment to collapse and allow a full fledged attack by communist russian?  no.  i dont see how people can be against something that has no effect on them.

I personally would never marry another man, but i have no problem with it...

if they want to ban it, they might as well bring back white/black only bathrooms, remove non-slavery laws, put native americans back on reservations, ban women from voting, and so on.  i know alot will say that is a stupid, untruthful, and unfair comparison.  but it is not.  it is the same thing as bigotry, exactly the same thing. 

definition of a bigot:
A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
Person extremely intolerant of others and irrespective of reasoning

anyways, my point is if they ban gay marriage, they might as well take the bill of rights/constitution, rip it up, and burn it.  america is about equal rights, not equal rights for some.  i know this because i refuse to believe i took a bullet and risked my life to protect the freedom of most and not ALL

"And what about animals who are homosexual? There ARE animals that are." So true! One of our cats is gay :) We tried pairing him with one of our other cats when he was in THE AGE, but he didn't know what to do and retreated. We still love him as much as before. If he were to find an other nice boy cat and pair up, it'd be fine with us. We love him all the same.

damn thing keeps cutting me off. The end of the sentance was: What we consider natural has changed through time (e.g interracial marriages, women's place in society, etc.) It's a concept, not a universal truth. Now we see how our thinking has been wrong in the past about interracial marriages and women's rights, whose to say now that we aren't wrong again?

I'm not telling anyone they're right or wrong because I don't believe that's my place or right to do so. But, as I said, I do believe in treating everyone with respect and giving everyone the same rights. Same sex marriage isn't the same as marrying your dog. Two consentual adults is the premice for marriage therefore it should apply to any two consentual adults. As far as incest, I think we have condemned that because incest produces children with birth defects. However, if two people related want to get married and can't/won't have children well... personally I wouldn't care. It's none of my buisness. But since they're not a wide array of relatives petitioning for marriage liscences, I'd say we should wait until that happens. There are a wide array of same sex couples looking to get married.

People bring up polygamy often. The problem with that is polygamy is usually religious and in religion men can marry multiple wives and women can't marry multiple husbands, so that practice of only man being able to have multiple wives is unequal. However, if there were a large number of people wanting to marry multiple people and allowing it to be equal with men and women, again, it's none of my buisness, they can fight for that if they wish and I would have no problem with it.

Anyways, I added a bit more for some arguments. Of course there will be differences in opinion. TINC, I don't want to discourage you from debating and voicing your opinion. You have a right to think what you wish just as much as anyone else does.

TINC, I can definately see where you are coming from and why you think the way you do.

In truth, I don't know what I consider to be natural any more. So much of our world is unnatural. Chemotherapy isn't natural. Glasses aren't natural. Skyscrapers aren't natural. Condoms aren't natural. I personally don't feel that natural is up to us to decide any more or even relevant in our world.

And what about animals who are homosexual? There ARE animals that are. Sure, it's not extremely common place (as far as I know), but it does exist in the animal world, so who's to say it doesn't exist here.

Whether it's natural or not, I honestly couldn't tell you. But I do know one thing. I do know that people like what they like, natural or not. And when they try to pretend to be something they don't feel they are, it's extremely damaging to them psychologically. And, as long as everything is consentual and maturely understood, I don't see a problem with allowing people to like what they like, espcially when they are harming no one by doing so. I'm sure many people find BDSM unnatural, but I don't think it's fair to refuse them rights on the basis of it or treat them less than human. Because in the end, we're all human and we all deserve the same respect.

I can't tell you if being gay is in a gene or if it's not. The whole debate around whether being gay is a choice personally annoys me. My point is, so what if it's a choice? I choose to dress in all black every day and get piercings and listen to gothic industrial music. Some people choose to be christian. Other people choose to be pagan. People make a lot of lifestyle choices, but it doesn't mean they deserve any less respect and it doesn't mean it's anyone's buisness but they're own.

Morally, I can't tell anyone anything. I'm not God. I don't know what's morally correct and what's not. But one thing I DO believe in, is respecting everyone equally as long as they are hurting no one and just going about their lives (because hurting someone would be disrespecting them). I believe that if the government is going to give certain rights to certain people, they should do it equally, that's all.

Consider this, a lot of people believed interracial marriage was unnatural and wrong (many using religious and biblical backings for opposing it). Many said mixing races would produce "mongrel race(s)". What we c>*** Message has been truncated ***

@ThereIsNoCure:  We both used extreme examples of course -- it's easier to make points with high drama.

No, marriage has nothing to do with reproduction,barring religious beliefs , sedge, I'll agree with you on that.  I was using an extreme example to get a point across, yes, but I didn't mean the human race faced threat of extermination because of this petty issue.   I apologise if my thoughts were expressed in an unclear way.

@ThereIsNoCure:  You can chose to leave the discussion, but I think if you re-read your post you'll see that you did mention "something that would destroy the human race were everyone to do it" in your post.  That is definitely not the end of the human race as I implied and I apologize for jumping to conclusions. With that said, I would hope that you would agree that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage -- that's the point I was getting at.

@big brother/ThereIsNoCure:  I tend to agree that religion is definitely not something I want to discuss on PJ (or anywhere else for that matter).  Defending/attacking religion brings out the worst in people. 

The thing is I've never understood why gay marriage (legally speaking, not religiously of course) is such an offense to religious people.  I don't think people can quite grasp that as far as any secular government is concerned marriage is a legal contract and nothing more -- should atheists and agnostics be denied marriage too?

I believe you've taken my statement out of context, sedge.  I never said homosexuality was bringing us to apocolypse, I was only making a point, as I assumed I was allowed to do.  Also, the issue of same sex marriage is more contoversial because of religion not government.  The legal unity is not something the church opposes, but rather actual marriage, as is the case.  And I believe HMC is confusing 'primitive' and 'natural'.  With that, I'm really quite done with the discussion of homosexuality, and this is the reason I try to avoid such discussions in the first place.

Let me just be the first to throw this in the discussion... who cares?  Why do people care what other people do?  If some guy on your block wants to marry his cousin, his best friend, his box turtle (thx Aziz Ansari) what the hell do you care?   Marriage is simply a legal contract in the government's view that gives people certain rights -- rights that all people should be afforded.  Frankly, I care less about gay marriage then I do about this silly notion that married people should have extra rights.

For anyone who brings up the argument that this is the end of the human race because homosexuals can't reproduce... ARE YOU F*CKING SERIOUS?   I think the world could do with some drastic population control.  How many 100s of millions of neglected and unwanted children are there right now at this very moment?  The world's population is at 6 billion now and climbing rapidly. Is it a race to 12 billion? 

For future reference, you don't need to be married to have kids -- just ask my baby's mama. 

What does the capacity of reproduction have to do with something being natural or not? To reduce our entire society to what is considered natural seems like a big step backwards. It's not like homosexuality is a new concept, anyway. Also, I noticed no one has seemed to bring up the topic of adoption.

In my own opinion, and in defence of the heterosexuality advocates, I believe homomsexuality to be unnatural because it is impossible for two people of the same gender to produce an offspring, the very purpose of sexual reproduction.  Old people and those that are sterile cannot produce offspring either, but I fail to see where you're going with that analogy.  They made no concious decision that affected their ability to keep the human race going.  Dead people can't reproduce either, so where does that fit into the analogy?  In conclusion, something that would destroy the human race were everyone to do it, save through use of modern technology (which is hardly the way the human race should continue), is in my opinion, quite unethical and wrong.  I respect other beliefs of course, these are simply mine.

If we let gays marry, the SANCTITY of Britney Spears' 55-hour, just-for-fun marriage will be TARNISHED FOREVER. IS THAT WHAT YOU PEOPLE WANT?

sorry it got cut off:
You can't use our orientation against us as a class and then refused to acknowledge us as a class when it comes to giving equal rights. That's just my opinion.

I talk too much. :P

Now, as to points being brought up.

@space2, what evidence do you have to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural?

@JJ Maxx, what evidence do you have to suggest that being gay is "wrong"? Many like to bring up the fact that gay people can't produce children. A lot of striaght sterile people can't produce children. Elderly can't produce children. Does that mean they have done something wrong? Does that mean that when a couple is no longer able to produce a child that they should have their marriage revoked? Same sex couples are no different than straight couples. They can be monogamous or not. They can have good or rocky relationships, etc. A lot of gay people are portrayed as very promiscious and yet there's no evidence to suggest that they are any more promiscuous than straight people. If we applied the same moral scrutiny to straight couples, one could easily say they don't deserve marriage. Same sex couples are two consenting adults just as much as straight people are. And they have families, homes, and eachother they wish to protect. Straight people get "special rights" when they marry, 1,000+ rights in the US (and they don't even have to KNOW eachother to get these rights), so why should same sex couples be refused the same? It's not special treatment, it's equal treatment. Marriage is more than a tax break. With those rights also comes important critical rights such as being allowed to see your spouse in the hospital or, if a spouse dies, the stepparent being allowed to take custody of any children they may have. Because same sex parents and couples don't have these rights, serious problems can occur such as family members coming in after one spouse has died and doing what they wish with the deceased spouse's belongings or even burial procedures even against said deceased spouse's wishes. Or, in the case of my life specifically, my father refused to pay child support and threatened my mother that if she asked for any he was take her to court and take me away from my mother simply on the grounds that she's gay (which he COULD do in Virginia, regardless if my father is or isn't a suitable parent he would still win). As far as class, maybe if homosexual people weren't targeted as a class by society for moral scrutiny and judgement, maybe we wouldn't have to fight for equal rights. You can't use our orientation against us as a class and then refused to acknowledg>*** Message has been truncated ***

I can understand why people would think that controversial issues can divide a community. They tend to have a lot of sensitivity surrounding them and people get offended.

Personally, I feel like if you can't discuss issues you feel strongly about with people who are your friends, who can you dicuss them with?

I think discussion about beliefs promotes tolerance. I don't mean to offend anyone who personally believes that homosexuality is unnatural by my post. I fully support anyone who has that belief because I think that you have every right to believe what you want to believe. I'm not trying to enforce my opinion down people's throats and MAKE them  believe what I believe. And I'm very open in listening to others beliefs. And I attribute that tolerance to hearing a lot of positions on issues I'm very passionate about. And I heard them by bringing up what I'm passionate about in areas that may not seem "appropriate".

I don't believe every controversial issue has to be a huge moral battle (the media, in my opinion, is responsible for hyping up every issue so people get out of hand about it). I think we can discuss any issue clamly and as adults with understanding whether it be about our opinions or our beliefs.

I think, to an extend, people should get offended more often. Because if you're offended by something, it urges you to speak out and say what you think, which I think is important to do. And then if someone challenges you on what you think, it challenges you to come up with reasoning behind it. Then maybe your ideas will change because you've found out that what you actually thought had no basis or, contrarywise, you feel more strongly about your position and can next time better explain yourself. Each time you get offended and defend yourself, you get better and better at trying to dicuss things civilly with people and diplomacy is alittle something I think we could use in this world, IMO.

I do apologize if I've offended anyone or made anyone think I was trying to make you all believe what I believe. I'm not saying that I won't challenge what you believe if I disagree, but this was made with no harm or harshness intended. I don't mean to create a hostile community enviornment, but I don't believe that, if we truly are a community, that disagreements should make a hostile enviorment for us.

Now, as to points being brought>*** Message has been truncated ***