, , ,

The Intolerance Of The “Tolerant”. My Take On Gay Marriage [Updated]

The intolerance of marriage equality advocates

Updated: 5/13/2015

I have written a few other articles on the topic of homosexuality that should be mentioned if you are finding this article after I initially published it.

Please read this before going all nuts on me in the comments.

Why I am supporting a gay rights/equality event!


Original article:

How come the people who claim to be tolerant are often the least tolerant of ideas not in line with their own?

Gay marriage is a pretty hot topic right now and it got me wondering, how come people automatically assume you are a bigotted racist, bible-thumping homophobe, just because you disagree with their position or viewpoint on the topic of gay marriage? It’s almost impossible to have an honest dialogue on the topic because you are instantly attacked for not agreeing with their position on a highly controversial topic.

That being said, I have a little different take on the topic and since I love a good controversy I’m gonna drop my two cents on this whole gay marriage debate.

My take on homosexuality

I don’t agree with it, don’t think it is natural and I wonder why it has become so prevalent in our current society. I struggle with whether or not it is something you are born with or if it is a choice you make. Part of me wonders if the desperation to fit in can at times influence someones sexuality. I don’t know about these things because it is impossible to have these conversations or ask these questions without worrying about being labeled as an intolerant ass hole!

That being said, I couldn’t care less if someone is gay or not. I think the most amazing part of living in America is that people are able to live whatever lifestyle they want. I have many gay friends and none of them would tell you that I am an intolerant, bigot who wants to “convert” them to normal. I actually don’t know how they think I think of them. Maybe that is the purpose for this article, to open doors and spark civil conversation on a topic that is often everything but that.

Why give more power to the government?

What the hell are we doing giving the government more control of our lives. Marriage was never something that had to be sanctioned by the government. For some reason as a people we feel that only the government can tell us what we can and cannot do. I understand the desire to be recognized legally for the purpose of tax savings, medical benefits, financial dealings and on and on but why must the federal government be the one to make this decision.

Why do the same people who pretend to be “liberal” give up all of their liberties by supporting an overreaching government. Why should the government be involved in anything that happens inside the confines of your domicile, let alone inside of your bedroom. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a tyrannical government, dedicated to maintaining a stranglehold on the rights of an individual and then expect to have the freedom to live your life as you please.

Why is the word “Marriage” so important?

Seriously, the gay community is supposedly so creative and different yet they want to claim the word marriage for themselves. Marriage is just a word. Why not come up with your own word, your own term for the unification of two people from the same sex? Come on, you mean to tell me that you need to be recognized as being “married” in order to be happy? Why the desire to fit in with this term when so much else is done to subvert culture and stand out in other aspects of your life?

How dare you compare this debate to the civil rights movement?

This might be the most absurd part of this whole debate. To even pretend like this is on the same page as slavery in America is just deplorable. No one has ever been enslaved because of their homosexuality or segregated for their beliefs. This is not the middle east where they stone homosexuals and require women to cover their bodies in public.

To even draw those comparisons diminishes your argument for equal consideration purely on the premise of its ignorance as a point of contention.

Let’s get real about true tolerance

Don’t get me wrong, I know there are legal terms and definitions that would need to be addressed and I am all for equal rights to gay and lesbian couples when it comes to financial and other commitments but why the attack on the word marriage? Why the desire to vilify those that value the sanctity of the word as it has been defined for so long. I get that there are “bible thumpers” out there and that bigotry and hatred abound but why are all people who defend the accepted definition of this term made out to be guilty by association?

Why is it that those who claim to be the most tolerant always become intolerant of those who disagree with their positions? Why must I hate you because I do not support your lifestyle? Why must I be evil because I believe something that is in direct contradiction of your lifestyle? How come we can’t agree to disagree and understand that I still value your life and standing as a human?

True tolerance is what America was founded on and why we flourished as a nation. We are all able to coexist understanding that there are different personalities, religions, races, and yes, even sexuality. Have we made mistakes in the treatment of people in our past? You bet your ass, but we have moved on and still became the most powerful nation on earth. I get sick and tired of being labeled as intolerant by the people who wont tolerate the fact that someone disagrees with their opinion or viewpoint. Why aren’t you the intolerant one? Why is it me who is out of line for challenging you and not you for challenging me?

We can still be friends!

I have no hatred in my heart for any man or woman, (unless you are trying to destroy this country or clammer for communism but that is for another article) so please don’t call me intolerant or a bigot when I disagree with you. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I would love to have a level headed debate or discussion on any number of topics with you. I know not everyone is like me and some people might deserve the stereotype but give us the benefit of the doubt before calling us out.

Make an attempt to live up to the tolerance you espouse by tolerating my perspective. By understanding that we can disagree and still be friends. That just because I do not agree with your lifestyle means I don’t support parts of your cause or  would be willing to hear you out and stand by your side.

I am only intolerant of the people who are intolerant of my beliefs. Otherwise, we can still be friends. Call me maybe!

I would love to hear your position. Am I way off base? Do you agree? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.


49 replies
  1. operfekt:perfekteklof
    operfekt:perfekteklof says:

    How can human behaviour/sexual orientation be unnatural? We are from nature. How do you define natural?
    If a whole specie would be homosexual it would mean the end of it but that isn’t the case in any specie we know of. Earlier, before the 90’s homosexual behaviour wasn’t recorded in animal studies. Since 2003 it has been recorded in 200 species and it is found in “new” species every year so i would say its pretty common. I would also say its natural. Im a homosexual and I’m very much a creation of nature. And that it hasn’t been recorded doesn’t mean it does not exist.

    Why should gays not be able to take part in something that all the fairytales tell you about as “the biggest day of their life” many gays have the same dreams, goals and wants as heterosexuals. why should they be deprived?

  2. Russell Scott
    Russell Scott says:

    And, as for the insipid, monotonous, ignorant and long-standing (in a quagmire of intolerance and bigotry) stance that: “Homosexuality is against some divine plan because the participants to not reproduce,” it has even been stated here (in several permutations) that childless heterosexual couples are not stoned from the center of humanity – so should that not be the knee-jerk reaction to homosexual couples or single homosexuals. Every species has its non-producing members. How ridiculous is this statement – if you have something really intelligent to say; create something of your own – not simply the regurgatation of some other hate-filled mental midget.

    • Patrick Lilley
      Patrick Lilley says:

      It’s weird. I was just writing an article on how Fox News changes their viewers minds. Lately their little buzzwords are “why is it those who claim to be the most tolerant are the least tolerant when you disagree with them”. This dude STARTS his essay with that. He hasn’t even made a point yet, and he’s regurgitating the fascist rhetoric. Fascists used to rely on liberals passiveness. Check the history books. Liberals are allergic to fascism. We were the first to recognize Hitler for what he was and the last to continue fighting him. It sounds like this guy doesn’t really have a stance on homosexuality. He states that government has never had control over marriage. I guess he’s never been to a wedding where a pastor is required by law to say. AND NOW BY THE POWER VESTED IN ME BY THE STATE OF TENNESSEE……. I NOW PRONOUNCE YOU MAN AND WIFE.. Now, nothing could be further from the truth that liberals are intolerant of others points of view. Frankly, I don’t understand homosexuality. So as a liberal, I live out my life respecting the rights of others and the law, and then I hear that fascist pigs are trampling on the rights of homosexuals. Well, this isn’t a disagreement in opinion. I don’t give a fuck what you think of homosexuals, as long as they are treated equally under the law. We have a republic to protect here. This is no time for tolerance and open-midpndedness for your closed-mindedness. These are American citizens born with inalienable rights and Fuck the entire state of Tennessee and Ron Ramsey, you’re not going to infringe on their rights. Even if they do only make up 1.8% of the populations. Do you know that they’re so ignorant of the bill of rights, that they think that if a majority agree that a minority should have lessor rights, that that is literally how a democracy works? FOX TAUGHT THEM THAT. And now I’d like to address the authors statement about hate. He doesn’t hate anyone (he’s tolerant) except for those who would bring communism or try and destroy the country. Well, there you go again. See, I’m very tolerant of communists. Their Montra is rather a one for all and all for one. It’s not a bad Montra but I would want to live that way. So , no problem. Now, let’s get back to fascism (trust me, Reagan had nothing to do with tearing down the Berlin Wall. He was the start of Fascism in America ) fascist have a Montra that’s a mile long, that takes ALL power away from the people and transfers all the money, wealth and power over to the few. The hair on a liberals backs rise. Men died defeating fascism and it’s a threat to our way of life and all things decent. Did you know that Hitlers first attack was on the gays? Sure. Attack the 1.8% first. Remove their rights, and you have cracked the egg of the removal of rights, next came the Jews, then came the citizens themselves, and then came the attack on the world. Anyone who would care to validate my parallels, please go to brainyquotes.com and look at Hitlers quotes and you will see today’s right winged republican platform. We have already seen that movie. You can get all the buzzwords, lies, misinformation, disinformation and propaganda from Fox all you want. Fill your empty heads as full as you like. Spout it out as much as you wish. We love the first amendment. But try and apply fascism in America and you can expect to be meet with extreme intolerance. The kind that doesn’t end well. I’d love to spend ten minutes in an elevator with Tom Cotton to show just how tolerant a liberal can be to a fascist. God Bless America and everyone in it. But be damned sure it’s everyone, or we have a problem.
      I’m at acchokiefan@gmail.com

  3. Grace Durbin
    Grace Durbin says:

    Ah, and interesting article to stumble upon this evening! Where was I a year ago when this was written?

    I didn’t read any of the other comments just yet, because I hate to interrupt my own train of thought! =)

    Nine months ago my same-sex relationship came to an end after 5.5 years. Before that relationship came into my life, I had never ‘dated’ a woman before, but I’ve always been drawn more towards internal attraction. I fall for people’s heart/souls. That being said, I spent five years chillin’ the “lesbian” world, and absorbing, analyzing and observing every aspect of it that I could. Personally, I came to believe that homosexuality is both a choice, and in some instances, not a choice. I believe that being “born gay” probably happens a lot less than people proclaim that it does. If anything, I would be as bold as to say that nearly 50% (if not more) of the “gay” population have been victims of childhood abuse and/or sexual trauma. Of course, I’m an introvert by nature, so this realization came by analyzing my own decision, which immediately followed violent sexual assault, in 2007. As I became more exposed to other LGBT individuals, as got to know their stories, too, many of them carried the same common denominator.

    That being said: Who knows if gay is a choice or not. Let’s look at it from primarily a “disease” or “response to trauma” perspective… Wouldn’t those individuals be deserving of the same rights promised to any other citizen? If gender-identity disorder/ gender dysphoria were the only thing to blame- and ‘gays’ were just ‘mentally ill’ would we be raising the same controversy today?

    Lastly, if marriage is ‘just a word’, then why does opposition fight against it so avidly? One word: religion. The tradition of marriage (in the United States) is correlated highly with Christian beliefs which stipulate “between a man and a woman”. I was raised as a Christian believer, and still believe to this day; but either we are, or we are not, a nation that practices and supports freedom of religion. We cannot be both. How can we proclaim such religious freedom, when our laws are lined with one specific religion’s morals and values?

  4. Caitlin Burns
    Caitlin Burns says:

    I am going to write a comment in which I disagree with you. I don’t think you’re an “intolerant asshole” but I do think you are grossly misinformed about LGBT issues. Here is a point by point rebuttal of your post.

    [Your take on homosexuality]
    It’s great that you don’t care about a person’s sexual orientation, but you do point out that you believe it is unnatural and influenced by environment, which implies that you pass judgement and make assumptions about their psychology even if you’re being superficially polite. Have you considered that homosexuality may be more ‘prevalent’ simply because people have finally found social acceptance in their communities? I think a very important point to remember about orientation is that it is not a fixed characteristic, gender and orientation are spectrums, not borders. In fact, I’ll bet you’re a little gay somewhere in your heart. [trust me, I can tell these things.]

    [Why give more power to the government?]
    I, too, have libertarian tendencies, and I do see the need for marriage privatization. However, that’s a whole other issue. If you were keeping up with the politics of the gay marriage movement, you’d know that there is legislation being pushed to strictly define marriage as between one man and one woman. I struggle to see how you believe that legislation to forbid homosexual marriage is more acceptable than legislation to welcome it. [since the date of this post DOMA was struck down, so yay!] Even if you are libertarian, you can still logically recognize that law has the power to either enslave or emancipate. You tried to make a point that people ‘want it both ways’ because they desire freedom in their personal lives but also want the fed to uphold their civil rights in the public realm, but I will excuse that statement on the grounds of hyperbolic rhetoric, for it is certainly not grounded in political theory. You plainly stated some REALLY IMPORTANT issues that recognition of gay marriage would immediately solve, but somehow you’ve warped the need for tax breaks, spousal benefits, and other highly regulated activities like buying a house or adopting a child, into tyrannical government oversight. So really, your opinions here have nothing to do with the legitimacy and necessity of gay marriage, but your irrational fright of a barely functioning central government.

    [Why is the word “Marriage” so important?]
    This section is so stupid and offensive I can’t even believe you’re being serious. Do you really think each and every homosexual person is out there to “subvert culture and stand out in other aspects of your life” because they are all so “creative and different” ? How many gay people do you even know? A better question to ask is why the word “Marriage” is so important to heterosexuals? Why does another group of people utilizing a common phrase so shocking and upsetting that it demeans the very definition of it? I, myself, am heterosexual. When I get married, the last thing on my mind will be the fact that other relationships use the same ceremonial term to describe their unions. Insecurity, plain and simple.

    [How dare you compare this debate to the civil rights movement?]
    I’m thinking that you’re misunderstanding the meaning of the term “the civil rights movement” to only include the “African-American Civil Rights Movement of 1955-68” one of many civil rights movements to have taken place in this wonderful country we call home. That particular wave of social change was indeed tumultuous, but in the end, we all agree that it was beneficial and is now a source of national pride. Race is not the only driving force for social change in a society. The definition of civil rights, as a common noun, is a class of rights that protect individuals’ freedom from infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one’s ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. So, sure, continue to be that guy who scoffs at anyone who labels their social justice agenda a “civil rights movement” because they were never systematically enslaved. You’re refusing to acknowledge the plights of homeless LGBT youths who’ve been kicked out of their homes, the ones that kill themselves due to psychological abuse, the ones that are disemboweled and hung from fences, the ones that are hazed in locker rooms, [I could go on…] all because of a misinformed need to compare contemporary forms of oppression to the worst historical examples thereof.

    [Let’s get real about true tolerance]
    You certainly are obsessed with the word “Marriage”. I guess for you, this is ultimately an issue of linguistics, and not behavior/equality/government. Other word meanings ebb with the times, and that seems to be fine with most people. Do you take fits when words like “selfie” and “lol” are added to the Oxford English Dictionary? Are you totally mad that “dating” doesn’t always mean “dating exclusively” ? Will you freak out when your heterosexual wife says “I do” but she really meant “I did, until I met CHAD!” ? You clearly don’t value the precise definition of other extremely important terms [civil rights, gender identity, body politic, to name a few] so I guess I just don’t place a lot of importance on your personal definition of another vague term. Again, I don’t think you’re an “intolerant asshole,” you’re just embarrassingly over-confident about your narrow-minded baseless opinions. Which is fine, we love that shit here in America perhaps more than anything else. Just know that yelling about “your right to have an opinion” doesn’t guard you from others attempting to shed light on the subject to you. You seem to be awfully concerned about your freedom of expression whilst denying it to others. No one thinks you’re hateful, evil, bigoted, etc. You just have no idea what you’re talking about, and that makes me laugh more than anything.

    I love the part where you say we’re “the most powerful nation on earth” because of the tolerance present in American society when a few paragraphs ago you said “granting gays the right to marry is extending the arm of an already tyrannical regime” Haha, ok.

    [We can still be friends!]
    I do want to be friends with you, because I, too, am an award-winning creative professional here in Sarasota/Bradenton. I really want our community to grow into something amazing and world-renowned. That will not happen when we cling to illogical conservatism and purposely obstruct societal change. I want to be a member of a community that is progressive, open-minded, and welcoming. Not stereotyping, self-assured, and based in patriarchal bullshit. I am more than willing to meet up with you, and whomever else from the HuB who wants to try to debate me about contemporary social issues, because I assure you, there is plenty more where this came from. Thanks for being so tolerant of my opinions. Please feel free to troll my blog if you see the need.

    • Raymmar
      Raymmar says:


      Thanks for taking the time to explore my site and for submitting a comment. I appreciate your perspective but I also enjoy a good debate so here we go.

      Homosexuality is unnatural. You cannot reproduce naturally with someone of the same sex which is pretty important to the survival of any species.

      What I was eluding to in my point about government is that we constantly relinquish small bits of control in order for the government to legislate morality and maintain order in society. The same people who push for “liberal” and more specifically “progressive” agendas are more often than not the ones associated with controlling all aspects of our lives. How can you support someone who you think is going to free you in your sexuality while enslaving you with all of their other legislation. The greater point that I was trying to make is that we should all be fighting against more government regulation, even with regards to this issue as opposed to giving them more excuses to interfere with our lives.

      On a side note, if you think that my fear of a tyrannical government is irrational based on the current state of our federal government then I question your understanding of our current political climate.

      I know a lot of gay people, and while there were some over-generalizations used here I think you get my point. The word marriage is important because definitions of words like these cannot be malleable. This is the flaw of the progressive philosophy which is corrupting our entire society. We must no continue to re-write history for the fear of forgetting where we came from. Sure it is easy for you to scoff at this in the short term but when it is looked back on hundreds of years from now these small changes can have substantial impacts on entire societies.

      I agree with your comment about civil rights to a certain extent. I was in fact comparing this to the racial civil rights movement in this country because it is the one most commonly used in arguments for the legalization of gay marriage. I would like to see some numbers on the homeless and disemboweled children due to homosexuality in America. Bad parenting is rampant and kicking your kid out for being gay falls into a whole other realm of bad parenting but I would venture to guess that the number of kids who run away from their homes due to the pressure of being gay pails in comparison to other reasons kids run away. Not to mention there are all sorts of other reasons kids get bullied in schools. I was bullied in school when I was younger and at one point my parents thought that I might be gay but I did not kill myself, or cry or go crazy and kill someone. As a society we are creating a bunch of spoiled brat babies who are incapable of standing up for themselves or tolerating some harsh language. Shame on us as a country for neglecting our duties to prepare our next generations for the real world. Best of luck to all of them as the real world chews them up and spits them out.

      All said and done, much like the rest of my work, I was just trying to start a conversation. I openly admit that I am ignorant in some aspects of this debate. None of what I wrote was derogatory or intended to do anything other than spark civil conversation on a controversial topic. I have never tried to oppress anyone’s right to free speech. Quite the contrary, I encourage others to speak out on any number of issues.

      Do not place me inside of some political box because you read this one article. You call my conservatism illogical and yet you know nothing of my. You pretend to know my conservatism because I stand on one side of one issue. I would implore you to read more of my writings, explore more of my work and you might be surprised to find out that I am one of the most open minded, free spirited people you will ever meet. My opinions are based in experience and observation but I am always open to further understanding.

      P.s. if you are serious about more debates, I am playing with a concept called controversations where we just have controversial conversations like this one but in an open forum and then put it out for the whole world to see. Let me know if you are interested. And we should totally meet for lunch. We can continue the debate then.

      • johnnywing
        johnnywing says:

        That was very well thought out Caitlin, thank you.

        Raymmar –

        “Homosexuality is unnatural. You cannot reproduce naturally with someone of the same sex which is pretty important to the survival of any species.”

        I’m not sure I follow the logic here. What does being able to reproduce have to do with something being natural? There are TONS of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior. Are they also being unnatural?

        Obviously, the goal of marriage isn’t simply to reproduce, there are plenty of married couples with no intention of having children. Is this as unnatural as homosexuality?

        Could you elaborate on this a bit?

      • Raymmar
        Raymmar says:

        Reproduction is not the goal of marriage, but it is the primary focus of any species. If you look at it from a purely scientific standpoint, any species that cannot reproduce would eventually face extinction. Therefore the natural order would require a male and female in order to propagate the species.

        I won’t concede that there are “a ton of animals” that exhibit homosexual behavior, but I will admit that there are SOME animals that exhibit what we perceive to be homosexual behaviors because we humanize animals and pretend that they look at the world as we do. They have no reasoning abilities, no cognitive thought process and I would be willing to bet that those actions are purely explorations of curiosity and not an exhibit of their “natural” sexuality, their primal desire to reproduce with a member of the opposite sex.

      • Dudeface
        Dudeface says:

        @Poenix & Raymmar,

        Damn it. Sorry guys I’ve deleted my comment by accident.

        If any of you miss it let me know. I’m sure I can re-produce it almost exactly 🙂

        “Dudeface, thanks for registering an account with Disqus just so that you could converse with me.”

        What I said in my comment was something to the order of wishing for a “hide this poster forever” button as a result of your comments. So for you to write something like this is an attest to your self inflated ego.

        Discussions are about sharing information and helping one another to synchronize our concepts and facts. It is not about criticism nor making others wrong. Criticism and attitude without applicable facts just indicates that you are not willing to participate in a valuable exchange. Raymmar was asking for thoughts. I quote: “Am I way off base? Do you agree? Leave your thoughts in the comments section.” You took that as an invite to voice your opinions about Raymmar as opposed to the subject.

        If your views differ from his then perhaps you should share the necessary information with us here that you may be aware of which he could use.

        Raymmar, looking forward to chatting with you also.

        “Dudeface, some people just cannot be reasoned with.” I agree.

      • Raymmar Tirado
        Raymmar Tirado says:

        The funny part is that tje title of the article is “the intolerance of the tolerant” and these guys just brialliantly help me prove my point.

        I bet they are so open minded though. We probably fm don’t understand it. We are obviously not as smart.

      • johnewing
        johnewing says:

        It’s a straw man argument that you are making. I haven’t seen anyone here claim to be tolerant. I don’t tolerate bigotry, and I don’t tolerate oppression. You could say that I’m ‘intolerant’ of the idea that our government can have an institution that grants special rights to one group of people but not another. Marriage in it’s current state is that kind of institution, and it needs to be fixed.

      • Dudeface
        Dudeface says:


        “For being new to this blog, that person seems to have a very similar writing style to the author. Great minds think alike I suppose…”

        If I didn’t sense sarcasm I could take that as a compliment 🙂

        Just to add one more possibility to your list: perhaps I am here due to the affinity which exists between alike minds.

      • Dudeface
        Dudeface says:

        To All, (Re OP)

        Disclaimer: I am going to be thinking out loud here and switching through various viewpoints. I will not respond to claims which intend to make this personal. I couldn’t care less about what other people do with their lives as long as they do not harm or others. (knowingly or by being so self-centered that they ignore the well being of others)

        As for the subject at hand:
        It seems a lot of it has to do with viewpoint. I could see the unnatural statement to be true from a certain viewpoint. After all the purpose/goal of “the living” (an individual or humanity as a whole) could be said to “be indefinitely”. (Survival) Thus, what aligns with that purpose could be said “natural”. From such viewpoint someone with a heart failure who undergoes surgery and as a result gets to live another 30 years is in alignment with the purpose and so are heterosexuals as this increases their chances of producing offspring.

        Then again, some people consider that “natural” is how things are without human intervention. Somehow to them what humans do is unnatural. (Curious. As if we weren’t part of nature or something like that) Of course such people become hypocrites the moment they need a doctor to survive. (Not at all uncommon) Some can easily criticize others but when their time comes they squeal/cling to survive.

        Point is, survival is a strong and fundamental instinct/drive. It is easy to think we are above it, only to find out at critical times how delusional we have been.

        Some people go against survival knowingly or subconsciously. I hear that most gay people consider their sexual orientation natural. Is it genes? Is it the life experiences/environment? Or both? Does it really matter?

        Let’s suppose genes are the cause. Then it is natural to be gay since nature is responsible for genes. Let’s assume the cause is environment and life experiences. Since humans are a product and part of nature, then by extension so are the environmental and social conditions we create. Thus again it could be seen that being gay is natural regardless of the cause. Neither cause is within our reach of control for the moment. The science of genetics, psychology and social psychology are still in diapers.

        Now I have argued both sides. It is both natural and unnatural depending on the viewpoint.

        Let’s see the offspring aspect. Clearly to have an offspring gay people need to adopt. (or kidnap, hope I’m not giving any ideas here) From the nature viewpoint, to adopt is to say screw nature! We’ll find a way. I can’t really argue such mentality as there are a number of things about “nature” I wouldn’t mind changing. Further more, if they adopt, they are taking responsibility for a child that others have abandoned. From the child’s viewpoint that is much better than the alternative. From the viewpoint of the survival of the the species it is also a positive move. But only to a certain degree.

        A good verification method for ethics is to ask ourselves “what if everyone did that?” for any gray area ethical concern. If response is possible/certain chaos, disorder, destruction, devolution, death etc. then it is easy to realize that such activity would be ethically wrong from the viewpoint of the species. (Absolute ethics)

        Now don’t get me wrong. I know that being gay is a different question. However, what if everyone way gay? Our species would die out.

        If someone is gay so be it. It sounds like they don’t have a choice. But to promote and encourage gayness (if that is even possible) would be against “nature”. Then again, we are humans, so we could enforce random hetero days 🙂 Say once a year everyone would have to have unprotected sex with a random member of the opposite sex. Problem solved. (JK)

        Point is that we are humans and clearly we are overriding “nature” already. Whatever we chose to do becomes the path of nature since we are nature.

        “Gay” is a label and as such is prone to be used as a generalization ignoring the fact that gay people are individuals.

        I would be much more concerned with the ongoing epidemic of dishonesty that is taking this country by storm. (gay or no gay) Someone is gay and they want to help the species by taking care of an abandoned child? As long as they can put the child’s needs above their own and raise him/her without steering them this way or that way sexually allowing the child to develop into an individual and think on his/her own, so be it! I’m sure many could deliver such parenting. It wouldn’t even surprise me if some would make better parents than many hetero parents who do an ass of a job being a parent offloading their own baggage on the child.

        I would be much more interested in the quality of parenting than the sexual orientation of the parents. It is a tricky business to raise a child so that he/she grows up thinking for his/her self. If they can raise a child who can think for self they have already done society a favor. A favor that many parents fail to accomplish as they leave their child’s education up to the obedience camps called “schools”.

        So I say to all those who have an issue with gay marriage that they should be focused on real issues as opposed to what the media is steering their attention on. Dishonesty and our institutionalized puppet breading system.

      • Dudeface
        Dudeface says:


        “The funny part is that tje title of the article is “the intolerance of the tolerant” and these guys just brialliantly help me prove my point.”

        Indeed they do. Followed by a protesting negation which is oh so surprising 🙂

        “I bet they are so open minded though. We probably fm don’t understand it. We are obviously not as smart.”

        Can’t blame them (too much) for thinking they are the smartest. In a system that over-embraces the ego and individualism at the expense of compassion and humility, many will be stuck in the “I know it therefore it is true mentality”. Since one can’t learn what one thinks one already knows they get trapped by their own ego and spread their opinions instead of facts. Instead of exploring multiple views they are stuck with one view. The first they accepted. Which must be true since THEY ACCEPTED IT! 🙂

        BTW thanks for bringing my comment back from the dead 🙂 (I assume that was you?)

      • johnewing
        johnewing says:

        I agree that the ‘natural’ vs ‘unnatural’ part of the argument is not really where we need to focus. As you mention, the concept of ‘natural’ is hazy at best, as we are all part of nature as well. (If a building is ‘unnatural’, then what about a beaver’s damn? etc).

        I’m with you there. However, I have an issue with your last paragraph. Gay marriage *does* affect real people. There are people in this country that pay the same taxes as everyone else, are great parents, and are good members of society, who do not get the same rights as everyone else. If their partner gets sick, they can’t visit them in the hospital or make decisions on their behalf. If they are raising a child who is biologically their partners, and the partner dies, (in many states) they can lose the child that they have raised it’s whole life.

        To me, this is an extremely important issue, I know people who deal with these issues personally. My cousin’s partner of 30 years passed away and his family took everything that was in the partner’s name. That wouldn’t have been possible if they were able to get married like heterosexuals are. It has nothing to do with the media distracting me from something else, this is a real issue that is going to continue to ruin people’s lives until we fix it.

      • Raymmar Tirado
        Raymmar Tirado says:

        Holy shit, step away for a few hours and miss a couple episodes there.

        There are good points in each of your novels of a response but honestly they both seem to be a lot of words to say very little new.

        I’m not going to go through them word by word because, well… I have other things to do today but I couldn’t not answer because Phoenix might not have something to talk shit about next time.

        You all make great points and this is an awese discussion on this issue which is exactly what this article was intended to do.

      • Dudeface
        Dudeface says:


        “It has nothing to do with the media distracting me from something else, this is a real issue that is going to continue to ruin people’s lives until we fix it.”

        First off, my comment about media is a general one. The fact that you care about other people’s problems and wish to do something about it is enough to indicate that you are not sheeple.

        The problem you mention is indeed unfair. Also it is a work in progress. All of us should be standing about the unfairness we observe because by not standing up we approve of it. We still live in a country where women are still not equal (even though they are supposed to be). That is a much larger group. This is not to say “gays stand in line”. No way. I only mean to indicate how difficult it is to change social habits. People are being raised to mind their own business which is so convenient for those in the business of screwing others over.

        If they only imagined for one second that it was them in other people’s place they would want to contribute. As it happens it is not easy to get people to do that nowadays.

        PS: if you had any thoughts still lingering about the similarity of writing style you can check out my profile at Linkedin 🙂


      • Phoenix
        Phoenix says:

        Can the elderly still get married, or has Bertha’s post-menopausal osteoporosis rendered too “unnatural” to hobble down the aisle? What about those “unnatural” freaks with a low sperm count or a wonky womb? Has the government started passing legislation denying them the right to marry, visit each other in the hospital, have control of a dying partner’s remains?

        I stumbled upon this blog and new as soon as I read ” I take on tough ideas and push the limits of acceptability. If I offend you, it just means I am doing things right. Odds are I did it on purpose, just to watch you react.” that the author would be an insufferable douche who doesn’t get any attention unless they are stirring shit.

        I couldn’t finish the lame-assed article for all of the foolery and fuckery, but it has been a hoot watching people who actually know what they are talking about wipe the floor up with this blog’s loser author.

      • Raymmar Tirado
        Raymmar Tirado says:

        Getting old is natural and so is menopause. Low sperm count and “wonky wombs” are ailments of the body that can be treated with medicine. Are you saying that homosexuality is a sickness? Sounds like thats what you are saying. Either that or you have no clue what you are saying and just decided to troll some comments on a “lame ass article” that you “couldn’t finish”.

        Your interpretation of my “about my-blog” section is completely off base and I don’t expect you to get it. If you were anything other than the intolerant I talk about in this article then I might have expected a little more.

      • Phoenix
        Phoenix says:

        And yet, with all of your importance and busy life, you still manage to respond to every single person who comments on old and forgotten blogs?

        Oh, okay Raymond. You’re out there changing the world and opening eyes! You go get ’em, tiger. If someone finds you to be an insufferable asshole, they probably just “don’t get you”. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with your poor outlining, shitty sentence structure, or your inability to properly research what it is you babble on about while jacking off to your own column.

        You are such a colossal loser.

      • Raymmar Tirado
        Raymmar Tirado says:

        You happen to catch me on a slow day. And shame on me for replying to my comments. Maybe one day I won’t be able to respond to each of them but for now, I’ll just have to take out my own trash.

        So what you are saying is that I am the looser? You troll my comments, I destroy your argument. Then you accuse me of responding to every single person on an “old and forgotten blog” (like somehow that is a bad thing) that somehow you found, didn’t read and then decided to flame!

        Please tell me more, I’ll go grab a beer and sit back while you dig deeper.

        Typical Liberal, “my argument sucks, guess I’ll just say some mean things” attitude.

        But I am the loser?

        Thanks for helping me prove the title of the article.

      • Dudeface
        Dudeface says:


        I’m new to Raymamr’s blog. After reading two of your comments I’m already wishing for a “hide comments from this poster forever” button.

        You wrote:
        “Can the elderly still get married, or has Bertha’s post-menopausal osteoporosis rendered too “unnatural” to hobble down the aisle? What about those “unnatural” freaks with a low sperm count or a wonky womb? Has the government started passing legislation denying them the right to marry, visit each other in the hospital, have control of a dying partner’s remains?”

        This seems to imply a connection. That if the government steps in on gay marriage it should also step in on these. There is no valid logical connection here. You may think there is because your mind is like a search engine. You look at some matching words and it spits out something which contains similar. Then you think it is logically related just because it came to your mind.

        After Raymmar brings to your attention the differences, instead of dropping these at the sight of your logical failure you go into ad-hominem mode. Whatever it takes to avoid self correction right?

        Your argumentation is non existent. You are simply bringing the opinions, ad-hominems and name callings of the typical loud mouth bully who’s intention is to mess up any discussion by throwing everything in including the kitchen sink instead of facts that actually apply to the topic.

        I’ll be sure to skip through your comments from now on.

      • Phoenix
        Phoenix says:

        Dudeface, thanks for registering an account with Disqus just so that you could converse with me. While flattered, I’d please ask that you steer your attentions to Raymmar. He’ll answer you, I promise.

        Every. Last. One.

      • Phoenix
        Phoenix says:

        You are mistaken. I came back because the comment, not this sad tripe you “blog”, was interesting. But thank you for proving my point.

      • Phoenix
        Phoenix says:

        THIS blog again? Ugh.

        Some candy ass I don’t know didn’t like comments I posted on some bullshit blob that I only ever read once and regretted. How EVER will I pick up the pieces and move on? I mean, surely there’s a support group out there for people in this situation.

      • johnewing
        johnewing says:

        For being new to this blog, that person seems to have a very similar writing style to the author. Great minds think alike I suppose…

        For what it’s worth (probably nothing), the biggest flaw in your discussion (both in the article and the comments) is the idea that the government would be ‘stepping in’ on gay marriage. It’s clever to try to turn this into a ‘small government’ argument, as I’m sure that appeals to many of your readers, but I imagine that you must see that the argument is a bit forced.

        Keep in mind, the ‘marriage’ we are talking about is *strictly* about the government’s involvement. It’s not like gay people are getting married outside of the government and the government wants to tell them how they have to do it. *That* would be stepping in. I see very few people (if any) making an argument that the government should force churches to preform these marriages. They just want the government (the one we all pay taxes for) to provide the same recognition to gay couples as any other couple.

        To conclude, I *don’t* want the government to ‘step in’ on marriage. But isn’t picking one orientation over another already ‘stepping in’?

        Even if you are correct, and being gay is unnatural and there aren’t really any gay animals, wouldn’t using that information to make a decision about who can get married technically be ‘stepping in’? If you really want a small government that stays out of our business, shouldn’t they should step aside and say ‘it doesn’t matter what we think about this, anyone who wants to partner can’. I fail to see how this would hurt, or even affect, you.

        Lastly, I get the impression that you are not very involved with the LGBT movement. You would be surprised to find that there are quite a few people in that movement who are critical of gay marriage as well. They would like to see all people recognized the same way, regardless of their status. This means an abolishment of all marriage. I think that you might be surprised to find some allies there if you keep an open mind.

      • Raymmar Tirado
        Raymmar Tirado says:

        Good points. I don’t agree with everything you said but I see where you are coming from. I guess I just think the government should get out of all of our business. You read the article so I’m not going to get back into the specifics but it’s the word marriage that gets me the most. We cannot just keep redefining words as we see fit. Maybe I’m old fashioned or plain wrong but that’s what’s great about this country. We all get to have our own opinions.

        Thanks for sharing yours.

    • Joey
      Joey says:

      Caitlin, it’s actual human beings like you in this world that restore my faith in humanity . You are able to articulate so well what I know to be true but don’t know how to express myself. It was a very well thought out response and you counter the OP’s bigoted illogical points so eloquently. I sincerely thank you for having been an ally to the LGBT community this long, considering I am writing this almost two years after the original publication of this blog post.

  5. johnewing
    johnewing says:

    “No one has ever been enslaved because of their homosexuality or segregated for their beliefs.” Perhaps you should go on wikipedia and look up the holocaust?

    • Raymmar
      Raymmar says:

      Johnewing, The Holocaust was a tragedy on a grand scale and is hardly an equal comparison. That was mass genocide and was perpetrated by an insane dictator. What you should be more concerned with is the fact that we are moving closer and closer to a pseudo fascist state here in America and in the quest to be “tolerant”, we will give up complete freedom which will open us up to things like the potential for genocide and other tragedies against humanity.

      This article was in reference to the treatment of Gays in America. I even mentioned that we were not like other countries in this sense.

      Thanks for reading and for the comment.

  6. Lamar
    Lamar says:

    WOW – bold stand esp. in Sarasota. I have had this same talk with one of my lesbian friends and I think we are in agreement. Have no problem with civil union for the purpose of rights as couples but agree that the term marriage should be preserved for the union between man and woman under God. Always was a holy union and should stay that way.

    • Raymmar
      Raymmar says:

      Yeah, I’m pushing the edges of acceptability on this site but I think my perspectives are fair. I knew it would piss some people off but that’s not really new for me. Haha.

    • Phoenix
      Phoenix says:

      Because separate but equal has worked so well in the past.

      Also, if marriage is only a holy union, are you outlawing atheists from getting hitched? A marriage isn’t holy by nature. You are confusing that with a WEDDING.

  7. Austin
    Austin says:

    Nice, way to lay it all out and show how we are all deemed equals but some seem to be more equal than others.

    • Raymmar
      Raymmar says:

      Thanks for the feedback. I actually got a little nervous about publishing this one but I really wanted to get my perspective out there. Thanks for reading and be sure to share the link with a friend who you think might like the article as well.


Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] If you had asked me a few years back to attend the Annul Harvey Milk Festival, I would have looked at you a little weird. I would have told you that I think homosexuality is unnatural and that I wouldn’t be attending because I did not agree with the lifestyle. […]

  2. […] we send an uninformed world as we disregard our lack of connection and grow comfortable with our fear of intolerance, and our absentminded effort to open a door to […]

  3. […] while back I wrote an article that (at the time) outlined my thoughts on gay marriage and homosexuality in […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Share your thoughts