In regards to Hetro opinions, froma gay standpoint, non-negative

Dear heart you get a big ol MUAH! LOL, you are too darn cute. But, I think it is wonderful that by watching, reading and experiencing your opinion has evolved!
I do not think it is a matter of push comes to shove, but a matter of looking at gay rights as human rights! Which is one reason I liked the movie so much. It allowed people to see how we, as in homosexuals, might be affected by not having the right to be with the one we love within all laws and rights. In one section of the movie Shel's Boyfriend tells him "I never even considered marriage, it is one of the perks about being gay!" But is it really a perk or are we telling ourselves that because it was the only choice we had? I used to think of it as a bonus, I wouldn't be stuck with the same person. However, now that I am a little older, 27, I would like to have the oppurtunity to share or mess up my life with someone!

I think we are all allowed to share our views and thoughts, that is part of a free country. Yet the person whom posted the herto opinion asked several questions;why are we seeing all the gay issues now, why should gays be allowed to marry, and why did John Stamos stoop to this level?
First, we see all these gay issues because the gay population is feeling as though their rights are being infringed upon. I am a gay male and the thought of not being able to have a union with a love at some point in my life is very saddening. We simply want to be treated fairly, and if you consider the issue it is only as apparent as all other civil right issues have been, look at women's lib and African American rights!
Secondly, why should gays be allowed to marry? Well, we want to be able to show our love for the person we care about most as equally and fairly as the rest of the country. Simply because we are gay does not mean we should not be entitled to the same benefits as marriage offers a straight couple which offers things such as insurance, inheritance, support, loans, name sakes, etc. I am not saying it even needs to be called marriage, as the term is biblical. At least offer the homosexual community the same rights within a civil union that recognizes us as a committed partnership. What is really wrong with that? And, this method allows the "sanctity" of the term marriage to remain un-marred and gives homosexuals the rights they ask for. The main argument about allowing gay marriage has been the fact that marriage is considered biblical, therefore remove the rights homosexuals are requesting from the biblical arena and there should be some common ground that all can meet on!
Thirdly, John Stamos-- apparently thinks this is an issue worth looking at. He did not commit career suicide, in fact I admire his resolve to do the role. He is a straight man playing gay, just another acting role. The movie may be light and fluffy, but it seems the best way to portray a controversial issue while allowing thoughts to be conveyed while not trying to offend anyone. It was his choice to do the role, and we as the public have no right to condemn him for, and we have no right to publicly put him on a pedestal either, for that matter. We are all entitled to our opinions and should be allowed to express them as long as we consider the rights of others within the same action so we can say whether or not we agree or disagree with his actions, but we do not have the right to judge or condemn him for this. I think he did this role well and did what he felt was fair and right. I thought it was interesting. This man, who yes stood for family values, to me, sent an important message. That family values do include the homosexual population as well as the heterosexual community and therefore should encompass all of the people in the world. Wouldn't a gay human being want to be able to have a family of their own and is it not their given right to attain that type of happiness offered to straight couples?
On a side note, gay men or women can be as good or as bad parents as any straight couple could be, so I do not understand why this is even an issue. The main concern should be whether or not the child in question is loved and cared for! Hence we should simply consider whether the home will be suitable, not who is mommy or daddy or even if the child has two mommies or daddies. If that is wrong then the movie "three men and a Baby" is all damnation!
But, these are all my own ramblings and you do not have to particularly agree. I enjoy discussing issues as they allow all parties to become more understanding. But, I dislike being told that I am not allowed to assert my love for the individual most important to me. I also, think it is not right to tell me that these desires are wrong. As long as I am not infringing upon other peoples rights why should some of mine be denied?
Sincerely,
Concerned gay male!