I just spend an hour...

[Homeless Nutter]

---

Can you tell me what you mean by 'pro-gay'? Because to me that doesn't make any sense. Are you pro-straight?

I find there are people who are neutral
and believe SOME cases of homosexuality are unnatural and can change
and SOME cases are spiritually born and cannot change.

That would be neutral to be open to both.

Then I find the anti-gay who believe ALL are unnatural and ALL
have a choice to change.

And the pro-gay who believe ALL cases of homosexuality are natural, not a choice, and cannot be changed. so the minute someone identifies as gay, that should be defended against trying to change it period. (And such people believe that any reports of people changing are either lies, repressing it, or not really ever gay.)
so that's what I mean by progay.
this includes people who are so FOR gay marriage they are willing to impose
these beliefs and PUNISH people who don't believe in accepting gay marriage.

---

I believe all such beliefs should be respected equally and not push too far one way or the other, where it discriminates against either side. I believe in consensus that respects all views or combinations of them. instead of trying to paint all cases the same and say only one of these views is right and others are wrong. until it is proven, these are personal beliefs, so the govt should not be abused to decide such conflicts.

Government making decisions in social and political matters is not "abuse". That's what it's for.

I'm not sure what good is consensus you're talking about, if its main goal is to not p*** anyone off. Maybe USA should have let those slave owners, who were pro-slavery keep their slaves, while anti-slavery people would be allowed not to part-take? Would that have been a just, reasonable and satisfying solution? No one has ever proven - to the satisfaction of the racists, anyway - that slavery was "unnatural", or that black people are their "equals". Part of the society decided it was wrong and forced the rest to comply.

Nothing is ever "proven" to people, who hold strong self-serving beliefs, which are not based in reality. Sometimes people who know better, have to force them to "get with the times".

BTW - I understand you're trying to be "neutral", but by taking a "wishy-washy" approach, you're basically offending and antagonizing all sides of the debate. "Consensus" which makes all parties unhappy will not last long...