serious question

[DeanCollins]

That's because they ARE synonoymous. The fact that he IS gay and the fact that you do NOT support his rights IS an issue, and it is a glaringly obvious one. What is the old saying, you need to :pooh: or get off the pot? Either you support him as a friend, which means you are FOR him being happy, or you are not his friend, he is just somebody you know who happens to be gay.

Chom,

Friendships are not "all or nothing", if they were there would be far fewer of them. To expect a friend to have an identical belief system and to support you in every way is unrealistic. People are compartmentalized which is mostly a good thing. Here's some examples of friendship issues that involve overlooking of one's beliefs or activities, where we are tollerant but don't have to accept the others beliefs in order to be thier friend: Religeon, Politics, Drug use, Sex, Occupation..... one's sexual preference is usually one of them. It is acceptable to decide not to accept

people who have certain beliefs/activities......but it is not manditory in order to have a friendship.

One of my oldest friends smokes pot occasionaly and thinks that drugs should be legal, he knows that I don't and think not, and yea we have talked about it, debated it, but It doesn't affect our frienship. He also thinks Wall-mart is an evil empire and snubbed me for shopping there once (I laughed and later found out they were indirectly his best cutomer) but I don't have to support that belief (and shop elsewhere) in order to be his friend.

Many on this board would otherwise be incompatable but come together over the love of "our team" and the fellowship that is the EX.

We decide regularly how far we are willing to go for our friendships and sometimes they are tested, and when expectations are too high they can end or be put on hold for awhile till one reaches out and says, I don't care about that anymore, let's continue our friendship.

[chomerics]

No Young Skywalker, liberals don't believe in absolutes only evil conservative Sith Lords. Chomerics, you are getting more conservative it seems with your absolute "right and wrong" views.

Exactly my point. . .

[Prosperity]

No Young Skywalker, liberals don't believe in absolutes only evil conservative Sith Lords. Chomerics, you are getting more conservative it seems with your absolute "right and wrong" views.

MissU28, I think you should take Destino's recommendation and be open to him about your feelings. If you don't agree with it just tell him. And yes you can still be friends with him.

Z

_______________________________

http://www.wayofthemaster.com

Chomerics isn't talking about absolute right or wrongs, but logical contradictions. For what its worth I do see some contradictions in her thinking, but it is only a step in her apparent paradigm shift. Eventually she will see it for herself. And usually things work out better when you can figure it out for yourself.

[Destino]

Sometimes bluntness is the best approach. . ..

damn you for using my arguments against me!

[BlueTalon]

Everyone here has missed a potentially huge factor in this discussion. The guy is from a Chinese family background. Their culture is not the same as ours. Here, we tend to wear EVERYTHING on our sleeves, whereas Asian cultures tend to be quite a bit more discrete. I think if anyone were to address/confront this guy face to face (the way Americans often do) about being gay, it could destroy him. Literally.

As in lead him to suicide.

Just let him lead his life. If it's a double life, oh well. It's not a "lie" per se, it just the way he chooses to live his life. And if he doesn't want to include you in part of it, that's his choice.

If you define your friendship with him in terms of his willingness to tell you everything, then he's just not going to measure up. (You should really have American girlfriends for the tell-all part, anyway.)

(edit) By the way, the personal situation and the politics ARE two separate issues. Perhaps someone could start a "why don't you support gay rights" thread if people want to talk about the politics side of it.

[chomerics]

Chom,

Friendships are not "all or nothing", if they were there would be far fewer of them. To expect a friend to have an identical belief system and to support you in every way is unrealistic.

Actually it is all or nothing in this instance, because you are saying to the friend that you want him NOT to be happy. This isn't the same thing as say religion, or traditional values, but striking at the core of their existance. I never said two people can not have different value systems, but in this instance, you should not because you are undermining their own existance with a backwards ill fated value system based on hatred and fear.

How about if you were friends with a slave, but you thouht that everyone should have a slave, would you be his friend? No, because if you were truly his friend, you would do what ever you could to help that person. You are more or less his acquaintance, and not a friend. The family in the Diary of Anne Frank is a good definition of a true friend. Somebody who would put their own existance at risk to help. Of course that is an extreme example, but it is a good one.

People are compartmentalized which is mostly a good thing. Here's some examples of friendship issues that involve overlooking of one's beliefs or activities, where we are tollerant but don't have to accept the others beliefs in order to be thier friend: Religeon, Politics, Drug use, Sex, Occupation..... one's sexual preference is usually one of them. It is acceptable to decide not to accept

people who have certain beliefs/activities......but it is not manditory in order to have a friendship.

I completely disagree and you are not looking at the root cause of the argument. Nobody is arguing you can't have different values, but when you say that person's values are wrong, and that he should NOT have the same rights as you, then you are crossing a boundary not seen in religion, drugs, sex etc. You are basically telling the person you think so less of them you would rather he or she suffer and not be happy, then change your value system. That is not what friendship is all about.

One of my oldest friends smokes pot occasionaly and thinks that drugs should be legal, he knows that I don't and think not, and yea we have talked about it, debated it, but It doesn't affect our frienship. He also thinks Wall-mart is an evil empire and snubbed me for shopping there once (I laughed and later found out they were indirectly his best cutomer) but I don't have to support that belief (and shop elsewhere) in order to be his friend.

Yet your friend has EXACTLY the same rights as you do when it comes to who he loves and how he choses to live his life, her friend does not. Do you see the difference? One is an illegal activity which he choses to do on his own, the other is an emotional feeling he has no control over.

Many on this board would otherwise be incompatable but come together over the love of "our team" and the fellowship that is the EX.

I agree, and that is not what I am saying.

We decide regularly how far we are willing to go for our friendships and sometimes they are tested, and when expectations are too high they can end or be put on hold for awhile till one reaches out and says, I don't care about that anymore, let's continue our friendship.

Yes, I agree, but don't you think this is a special case? Don't you think that the belief that one person is somehow superior to another person (make no mistake, it is superiority) because of their choice in lovers is overstepping the bounds of friendship? Don't you think the underlying principal to having a good friend is they would do anything for you and you them? That is what friendship is all about. When you fail to sacrifice your own ideology for the help of a friend, or even to support a friend, that that is not really being a true friend is it?

[chomerics]

(edit) By the way, the personal situation and the politics ARE two separate issues. Perhaps someone could start a "why don't you support gay rights" thread if people want to talk about the politics side of it.

I agree with everything you said, up until here. The personal situation is NOT seperate because the politics effect how she thinks and feels about people who are homosexual. Friendship should be devoid of politics/religion/race/creet etc. etc. and in this case, it is not. Being indifferent to the situation is a compromise in the mind, but it is still putting ideology before friendship.

[chomerics]

Chomerics isn't talking about absolute right or wrongs, but logical contradictions. For what its worth I do see some contradictions in her thinking, but it is only a step in her apparent paradigm shift. Eventually she will see it for herself. And usually things work out better when you can figure it out for yourself.

Hence my original post. I think that she will someday come to understand the true nature of friendship, compassion and empathy and she has already started. I was trying to get her to look at the situation from a different point of view and come to an understanding that any supression of rights or beliefs is wrong, no matter if they agree with your view of the world or not.

As for the black vs white argument . . . when talking to conservatives, I find they can relate to the black and white much better then the grey, and this is one instance when it is really black and white.

[TheSteve]

Yes, I agree, but don't you think this is a special case? Don't you think that the belief that one person is somehow superior to another person (make no mistake, it is superiority) because of their choice in lovers is overstepping the bounds of friendship? Don't you think the underlying principal to having a good friend is they would do anything for you and you them? That is what friendship is all about. When you fail to sacrifice your own ideology for the help of a friend, or even to support a friend, that that is not really being a true friend is it?

You're speaking in generalities Chom, a good friend will not necessarily do 'anything' for you, but rather anything that will benefit you. For instance, if I had a good friend who was addicted to cocaine and was on his way to six feet under, I'd do anything to help him try to recover, but I wouldn't help him buy cocaine for his addiction, even if thats all he wanted me to do. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this specific topic.

In summary, it really depends on what you're supporting/not supporting your friend in as to whether or not that defines if you are really their friend.

Since this is about sexual preference and behavior, suppose for a second you have a guy named Harry, who's a Christian and doesn't believe in sex before marriage, and you have Joe, who's somewhat religious but not gungho like that, and doesn't agree. Both are good friends, but Harry doesn't support what he thinks is sinful behavior. Are you saying they can't still be friends and enjoy each others company even if Harry doesn't agree with Joe's lifestyle?

I think though what you're trying to say is that the above scenario is okay, as long as Harry isn't trying to MAKE Joe abide by his morals, and in which case you do have an argument in regards to outlawing gay marriage.

[BlueTalon]

I agree with everything you said, up until here. The personal situation is NOT seperate because the politics effect how she thinks and feels about people who are homosexual. Friendship should be devoid of politics/religion/race/creet etc. etc. and in this case, it is not. Being indifferent to the situation is a compromise in the mind, but it is still putting ideology before friendship.

TheSteve already addressed this, but I want to add a couple of things. I'm led to the conclusion, based on your post, that you think people's friendships are necessarily contoured by their beliefs and politics regarding groups to which their friends belong. Well, I'd have to guess that a lot of people don't think the way you do about that. Some of us are perfectly capable of having friendships with people whose politics are diametrically opposed to ours, and who belong to groups with which we find objection.

Also, based on your views, you seem to think that because some of us oppose gay marriage, that we think of them as lesser people or subhuman or that we want to restrict their rights somehow. Probably nothing I say will change your mind about us if that's what you think, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that we don't consider them lesser even though we're opposed to their politics.

[Zguy28]

...any supression of rights or beliefs is wrong, no matter if they agree with your view of the world or not.

What if those beliefs are against gay marriage? Aren't you being a hypocrite?

[chomerics]

TheSteve already addressed this, but I want to add a couple of things. I'm led to the conclusion, based on your post, that you think people's friendships are necessarily contoured by their beliefs and politics regarding groups to which their friends belong. Well, I'd have to guess that a lot of people don't think the way you do about that. Some of us are perfectly capable of having friendships with people whose politics are diametrically opposed to ours, and who belong to groups with which we find objection.

I don't believe anything of the sort, and I thought I made myself clear earlier in the thread. I think this is a special case where not supporting their beliefs IS akin to saying they are not allowed the same pursuit of happiness you are. It is this single instance that is different from others, because you are saying to your friend that they are not equal to you. You are saying they are not allowed to live with their lover like you are.

This is not the same as drugs, or sex because each is allowed to pursue their dreams regardless of government, but in the case of gay people the government wants to make sure they do NOT have the same rights as everyone else.

Also, based on your views, you seem to think that because some of us oppose gay marriage, that we think of them as lesser people or subhuman or that we want to restrict their rights somehow. Probably nothing I say will change your mind about us if that's what you think, but you should at least be able to acknowledge that we don't consider them lesser even though we're opposed to their politics.

I do contend that people who don't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else in society is placing yourself above them. It is no different then a black vote being worth 3/5ths of a vote, or not allowing women the right to vote. It is the same exact thing, yet people want to try and say it is different. Maybe you can explain to me how not allowing some one to have the same rights as you concerning their partners is not similar to the above cases, or as to how it is not superiority over another individual.

[chomerics]

What if those beliefs are against gay marriage? Aren't you being a hypocrite?

I never said they can't be against gay marriage, that's their/your perrogative. I have stated numerous times that I have no problem with people who don't agree with the lifestyle, that's fine, then don't be gay!!!

When they try to tell people who you can and can not marry, then it IS supression of rights. You can be against gay marriage if you want to be, you just should not be against others pursuit of happiness, especially if it is your friend. And no, it is not hypocritical.

[Zguy28]

I do contend that people who don't want gay people to have the same rights as everyone else in society is placing yourself above them. It is no different then a black vote being worth 3/5ths of a vote, or not allowing women the right to vote. It is the same exact thing, yet people want to try and say it is different. Maybe you can explain to me how not allowing some one to have the same rights as you concerning their partners is not similar to the above cases, or as to how it is not superiority over another individual.

No it's not.

It's a lifestyle choice, not a racial issue. Quit twisting it around Dr. Spin.

[chomerics]

Since this is about sexual preference and behavior, suppose for a second you have a guy named Harry, who's a Christian and doesn't believe in sex before marriage, and you have Joe, who's somewhat religious but not gungho like that, and doesn't agree. Both are good friends, but Harry doesn't support what he thinks is sinful behavior. Are you saying they can't still be friends and enjoy each others company even if Harry doesn't agree with Joe's lifestyle?

No, they can be great friends.

I think though what you're trying to say is that the above scenario is okay, as long as Harry isn't trying to MAKE Joe abide by his morals, and in which case you do have an argument in regards to outlawing gay marriage.

Yea, that is basically what I am saying.

[chomerics]

No it's not.

It's a lifestyle choice, not a racial issue. Quit twisting it around Dr. Spin.

It's not a lifestyle choice for gay people, it is who they are. Maybe if you understood that you would start to comprehend what I am saying.

Do you think gay people choose to be gay because they like to be picked on, ridiculed, harrassed, etc etc??? Seriously, why do you think people are gay? When you post something like this, it leads me to believe that you are one of the group that thinks gay people can be taught to be un-gay. Is this what you think? If it is, then you are gravely mistaken, and do not understand the situation.

[Zguy28]

I never said they can't be against gay marriage, that's their/your perrogative. I have stated numerous times that I have no problem with people who don't agree with the lifestyle, that's fine, then don't be gay!!!

When they try to tell people who you can and can not marry, then it IS supression of rights. You can be against gay marriage if you want to be, you just should not be against others pursuit of happiness, especially if it is your friend. And no, it is not hypocritical.

The real question is "Where do you draw the line?"

Moral relativism in reality does not work. Here's an example:

As a society embraces subjective relativism, there begins to be more of a breakdown in order. It starts to build and build. All I have to do is watch the news to see that.

If I kill my neighbor because he called me a "conservative $%#@$", is it ok? If I come from a culture where killing is ok if someone insults you, then its ok right? Is it trampling my rights to tell me NO, let alone lock me up?

[chomerics]

The real question is "Where do you draw the line?"

Moral relativism in reality does not work. Here's an example:

As a society embraces subjective relativism, there begins to be more of a breakdown in order. It starts to build and build. All I have to do is watch the news to see that.

If I kill my neighbor because he called me a "conservative $%#@$", is it ok? If I come from a culture where killing is ok if someone insults you, then its ok right? Is it trampling my rights to tell me NO, let alone lock me up?

You never answered my question. . .

Your analogy also supports my point of view. A government trying to say who can and can not be married based on their subjective determination of sexual morals is an example of subjective relativism.

BTW, are you trying to equate gay marriage with a breakdown of order? Are you telling me that the more government restricts your behavior, the more society will devulge into chaos?

[Zguy28]

It's not a lifestyle choice for gay people, it is who they are. Maybe if you understood that you would start to comprehend what I am saying.

Do you think gay people choose to be gay because they like to be picked on, ridiculed, harrassed, etc etc??? Seriously, why do you think people are gay? When you post something like this, it leads me to believe that you are one of the group that thinks gay people can be taught to be un-gay. Is this what you think? If it is, then you are gravely mistaken, and do not understand the situation.

I beg to differ. This is going to be hard to say, but,

I myself used to believe I was gay. I kept it a secret and acted similar to what MissU28's friend is acting. But in secret I was looking for a gay relationship.

I changed. I decided that what I was doing was wrong. I turned away from homosexuality. I turned away from my porn addiction.

I repented.

See the link:

http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml#men

[Zguy28]

You never answered my question. . .

Your analogy also supports my point of view. A government trying to say who can and can not be married based on their subjective determination of sexual morals is an example of subjective relativism.

BTW, are you trying to equate gay marriage with a breakdown of order? Are you telling me that the more government restricts your behavior, the more society will devulge into chaos?

No I believe there is a moral line in the sand that you just don't cross.

What is on the other side of the line is what some have called "what ought not to be done."

[chomerics]

I beg to differ. This is going to be hard to say, but,

I myself used to believe I was gay. I kept it a secret and acted similar to what MissU28's friend is acting. But in secret I was looking for a gay relationship.

I changed. I decided that what I was doing was wrong. I turned away from homosexuality. I turned away from my porn addiction.

I repented.

See the link:

http://www.exodus-international.org/testimonials_left_HomoSexuality.shtml#men

First of all, I applaud you for your honesty :applause:

Just because you changed does not mean every other person is like you. There are many other people in this world who are gay because it is WHO they are, not something they are pursuing.

edit: After reading your link, I think sites like this breed into the superiority complex I elluded to earlier. In every one of the "testimonials", they talk about how being gay is horrible, bad and wrong, and how the lord saved them from their depths of dispair. IMHO, it is completely wrong, and outlandish to presume that people can be changed. If they change it will be on their own valition, something like this site justs makes gay people think there is something seriously wrong with them, when there is not.

[Zguy28]

something like this site justs makes gay people think there is something seriously wrong with them, when there is not.

Again subjective moral relativism. You believe its right, I believe there is something wrong.

The difference is this:

One side wants no consequences to actions that they feel is right.

The other believes its not up to us to decide. The authority comes from a higher place.

You have to apply it to all or nothing. You can't be "gray" as you described it.

Oh and BTW, I didn't change from Exodus Intl's efforts, but they are legit and loving folks.

[Zguy28]

Chomerics, I assume you are an atheist or agnostic from your views.

If that's the case, humor me and check out a book for me. I've read it.

Link: http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=104

Post your opinion online. I'd like to see it.

See you in the playoffs!

**

[DeanCollins]

Actually it is all or nothing in this instance, because you are saying to the friend that you want him NOT to be happy. This isn't the same thing as say religion, or traditional values, but striking at the core of their existance. I never said two people can not have different value systems, but in this instance, you should not because you are undermining their own existance with a backwards ill fated value system based on hatred and fear.

You've crossed a boundry here by telling someone what to think about a subjective issue. It's ok to explain your position on this, and to feel that strongly about it as well, but you've taten Miss U's thread from a how do I stay friends with someone who's lifestyle I don't agree with, to a full blown gay rights dicussion (argument) where you telling us all that we have to believe this and support that or we can't have a gay friend, that's bulloney.

In the process you've misunderstood at least what I said, as I assume that you think i'm anti gay rights, which is incorrect. I think that there should be a legal union available that allows for sharing of property, insurance, SSI....... But It should be called something other than Marriage (like cival union). But in the mean time, the law doesn't allow for that, it'll happen sooner or later. So it is very much like my friend who can't smoke pot in public and be "happy".

How about if you were friends with a slave, but you thouht that everyone should have a slave, would you be his friend? No, because if you were truly his friend, you would do what ever you could to help that person. You are more or less his acquaintance, and not a friend. The family in the Diary of Anne Frank is a good definition of a true friend. Somebody who would put their own existance at risk to help. Of course that is an extreme example, but it is a good one.

You're confusing friendship with martyrdom, lighten up a little.

I completely disagree and you are not looking at the root cause of the argument. Nobody is arguing you can't have different values, but when you say that person's values are wrong, and that he should NOT have the same rights as you, then you are crossing a boundary not seen in religion, drugs, sex etc. You are basically telling the person you think so less of them you would rather he or she suffer and not be happy, then change your value system. That is not what friendship is all about. [/Quote]

Thier lifestyle (relationship) is thier private business, which means it's none of my concern, just as my beliefs are my business. And in Miss U's

case that is exactly how it's being handled. I've had plenty of gay friends and aquaintances (and over 100 wealthy clients) and have treated them exactly like any other friend, probably better. These folks are living great lives, not suffering horribly as you stated (very dramatically) and certainly would never ask me to take up there cause (politically or otherwise) for them. I don't look at them as second class citezens, just people who will have to wait awhile for the legal system to resolve thier issues.

Don't you think that the belief that one person is somehow superior to another person (make no mistake, it is superiority) because of their choice in lovers is overstepping the bounds of friendship? Don't you think the underlying principal to having a good friend is they would do anything for you and you them? That is what friendship is all about. When you fail to sacrifice your own ideology for the help of a friend, or even to support a friend, that that is not really being a true friend is it?

I can only answer this personally. I generally have a "live and let live"

philosophy. So no, I don't run around thinking am I above that person or below that person. So it isn't a "superiority" thing with me.

How could you have a frienship with a gay person if you couldn't get past thier choice of significant other?? Sacrificing your own ideology for a friend is the abandonment (betrayal) of one's self, not a requirement of friendship. You need to check out a couple books on Co-dependency,

because this is what you're talking now.

[chomerics]

Chomerics, I assume you are an atheist or agnostic from your views.

If that's the case, humor me and check out a book for me. I've read it.

Link: http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=104

Post your opinion online. I'd like to see it.

See you in the playoffs!

**

Yes, I am

edit: At first I said I would check it out, but after reading the few paragraphs, I know I will not. I would spend my time ripping apart the holes in this mans logic as he tries to prove god exists. THere is ALWAYS a fundamental logical flaw in the argument books like this profess, and they try to demean you for not thinking like them. It is exactly the same thing as the website. They prey on people with fear.

Read this passage from the book. . .

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic"--one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

So I am ignorant because I don't believe in some onniscient supreme being? I am an ignoramous because I can not "find god" therefore there is something wrong with me?

Again, it is the exact same thing as the other site. It is preying on the "weak minded". The author, as well as the previous website is telling me there is something wrong with me because I am not like them. There is a fundamental flaw in this type of thinking, and it leads to ignorance. It stops people from thinking as individuals, and instead puts thoughts into peoples heads about how they are supposed to be. It is why I am not religious in the first place.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "'God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

Gee, what wonderful insight. . . Mussolini died, and the author is inferring it was because of him saying that God should strike him down. . . well the point isn't that he died, everyone dies. The point is that God did NOT strike him down!!!

Like I said, I would spend half of my time doing things exactly like this, ripping the book apart from cover to cover. I am open to reading stuff with insight, but from a coursory viewing of the book, I don't think it adds much insight at all, just more of the I'm going to hell because I am not like them. . . that is why I left the church in the first place.