One of the things that....

[scythekain]

got this information from here:

OREGON Current Law: DOMA written into state constitution (Multnomah County officials in Portland issued marriage licenses to 3,000 same-sex couples before being ordered to stop by a circuit court judge April 20. The case is likely to go to the state Supreme Court).

Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by citizen initiative groups and approved by 55 percent of voters.

Court action: The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking recognition of nearly 3,000 marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples by Multnomah County officials. A trial court judge ruled in April 2004 that the marriages were valid and banning same-sex marriage violates the state’s constitution. The state Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July but has stayed the decision until the state Supreme Court considers the matter. A hearing is scheduled before the high court on Nov. 17.

ucc,
Oregon’s nowhere near as liberal as either one of those states, Kerry just squeezed out a win. and as you can see from the above percentage, the gay marriage vote was extremely close in Oregon. Conservatives in the state rallied the conservative voters to vote against gay marriage, it just so happens that a small percentage of those voters voted for Kerry.

If you look at the county breakdown for votes, the liberal area in Oregon is only around Portland, the rest of the state is lightly to very conservative.

and here also is a case where the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban them the right to marry, gave them that right, the conservatives through a fit rallied there church members to vote against the bill on the ballot.

So what conclusion can you possible derive from this that makes any sense? Have a vote, then enact whatever most people vote against? Have a vote, but ignore the results if scythekain doesn’t like them? Don’t vote? What exactly are you getting at here?

in conclusion we shouldn’t be passing anticonstitutional bills that support one particular groups moral agendas on the rest of us as ethos.

Eh? So even if it turned out that the majority of people who opposed gay marriage weren’t opposed for religious reasons, it would still violate seperation of church and state, because it happens to be that once upon a time people did believe such things for religious reasons?

yes and the fact remains that a majority of the people are against gay marriage. There are liberal christians that are not, and there are liberal christians that are, and are for kerry (like the voters in Ohio esp).

The fact remains that if you looked at the votes in this case a majority are religious. The rest are predjudiced against homosexuality.

going back to one of my other examples, if the majority decided that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to marry whites would that be ok?

[tentative]

Uccisore,

Let’s switch the argument from a religious to a civil and legal basis.

If I asked you to approve of civil and legal contract for gay unions that give’s to them the same legal rights as that assumed by hetero unions, would you be able to sign on?

Understand, I’m not asking you to give away your belief that such a ‘contract’ is not approved by God, but simply in the concern that all citizens enjoy the same legal rights.

Is this doable? If not, what are the rational arguments against?

JT

[scythekain]

tentative, I think you’d have a split those who would be ok with a “civil only union” and those who wouldn’t.

Those who wouldn’t, it’s because of adoption rights. They don’t care that god has anything to do with it, all they care about is adoption rights.

[Uccisore]

Oregon’s nowhere near as liberal as either one of those states, Kerry just squeezed out a win.

Well, one of my points here has been that you can't equivocate between who won the presidency and by how much with the social liberalism of the state.  Oregon is passing pro-marijuana, pro-euthanasia and such laws, so I consider them fairly liberal.  They also have no income tax, which may shed some insight on why a Democrat would only win by a little bit. 

in conclusion we shouldn’t be passing anticonstitutional bills that support one particular groups moral agendas on the rest of us as ethos.

These bills haven’t been ruled unconstitutional, Chief Justice Scythekaine. If they are, they will be overturned.

going back to one of my other examples, if the majority decided that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to marry whites would that be ok?

I wouldn’t vote for such a thing, and I don’t believe in such an ideal, so obviously my answer is “No, that would suck.” If the vote were held, though, and that’s what most people wanted, then you can’t just say screw the people and do it however you want- even if I disagree most strongly.

[Uccisore]

Understand, I’m not asking you to give away your belief that such a ‘contract’ is not approved by God, but simply in the concern that all citizens enjoy the same legal rights.

 If that's all that was going on, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, I have no problem with a proposal like that, as an isolated thing. 

However.
As I’m beginning to get into with FutureMan on the other thread, I don’t think that’s the end of it. I think the pro-gay movement is a culture war, the intended result of which is to have homosexual and hetersexual unions seen as side by side equals by society. If gays got their right to civil unions (or better yet, if they had always had it!) and then things went back to the way they were before Will & Grace, gay rights marches, and bumperstickers about Tinky Winky, then I’d be fine. Understand when I say ‘go back to how things were’, I don’t mean to say anything condoning violence towards homosexuals. To get a little perspective on what I mean here, read the thread FutureMan started.
So there is no ‘everybody wins’ solution to this, I don’t think. Somebody is going to end up becoming marginalized by society; either conservatives or homosexuals. Either the world ends up looking a little more like Las Vegas, or a little more like Leave it to Beaver, to use generalizations on both sides.
Well, if it comes down to a conflict between conservatives or homosexuals…I belong to one of those two groups, I’m going to vote for my ‘team’ so to speak.

[tentative]

Uccisore,

Then by all means, help put down this constitutional ammendment crap. I suspect that if gays had the same legal rights as heteros, the problems would go away for all but the extremists on both sides. The few homosexuals I know well enough to at least discuss homosexuality are just as disgusted with the raging drag queens as we are. They just want to live a reasonable ‘normal’ life with the same legal rights as the rest of society. Their relationship with God is personal and no one’s business but theirs.

Like you, there are many things in our society I don’t particularly care for, in fact I might even be tempted to vote against them! But I remained concerned that we protect the rights of all minorities, whether I like them or not. That’s the wonderful thing about this country , its’ ability to take in all and protect their freedoms. It’s messy , and sometimes irritating, but it is also our greatest strength.

JT

[scythekain]

drag queens make up a VERY small percentage of homosexuals.

Well, one of my points here has been that you can’t equivocate between who won the presidency and by how much with the social liberalism of the state. Oregon is passing pro-marijuana, pro-euthanasia and such laws, so I consider them fairly liberal. They also have no income tax, which may shed some insight on why a Democrat would only win by a little bit.

Yeah Oregon also has a law preventing you from pumping your own gas.

[scythekain]

Seriously though,

you and others like you think homosexuality is a choice.

WHY CHOOSE SOMETHING THAT IS SOCIALLY CONDEMNABLE?

it’s like my co-worker here says, she knows several guys that marry women because they are afraid of the social stigmata attached to homosexuality, but on the weekends they go out and chase pants. (men).

It’s absolutely outrageous that our society is so backwards as to base our rules on homosexuality on a 3000 year old book. And frankly I’m pissed as hell. Why the hell is bigotry so prevalent in our society that is supposed to be a culture of freedom? I could go on, like how the conservatives are dissapointed that bush is granting illegal aliens that are paying taxes amnesty. I mean, FRICKEN HELL, this country was founded by illegal aliens. and an act of terrorism to boot!! (the boston tea party)

[tentative]

Calm down scyth,

Perhaps living in Slick Rock Idaho most of my life has helped me to learn how to live with ultra-conservatism, but somehow, we have to appeal to reason and calmly put a big spotlight on the irrationality we all too often face.

A note in the Idaho Statesman this morning says that three of our more notable off-the-edge-of-the-world extremists plan on pushing ban the gay marraige **** in our legislature. More dragons to kill. [sigh] Could these clowns even consider the civil union compromise? Not here in Idaho. Unfortunately, I doubt that very many in the legislature will offer any sort of resistance lest they be branded as ‘liberal tools of the devil’.

It’s too bad. Idaho is a beautiful place to live. The tough part is living as if we were still in the mid 1800’s.

JT

[Uccisore]

Then by all means, help put down this constitutional ammendment crap.

Nothing to be done now, though. The gay extremists raised this issue themselves, and the amendment is a response to their demands by a frightened public that sees 'gay' and 'raging drag queen' as equivalent.  The problem all stems from how it was gone about. The homosexual community didn't exactly put their best foot forward when they started lobbying- the most vocal of them reinforce and glorify the worst sterotypes about themselves, it seems to me. Huh. Kinda like Christians, now that I think of it. 
 As far as how I feel about a Constitutional amendment? Call me a bigot, but it makes me sad to think that the constitution will even mention homosexuality, no matter which way it rules.  But, it will- of that I'm convinced. If Bush's amendment fails, then some other amendment proposed by the other side will pass. So what do I do? I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense- in an idealistic sort of way. But "homosexuals get their tax break and then go back to keeping their sex lives to themselves like in the Good Old Days" honestly has not been presented to me as an option I can believe in.  No. Either conservatives hold the line, or else the small town I grew up in becomes like the Castro district.  That, I believe.

[scythekain]

@Uccisore

Nothing to be done now, though. The gay extremists raised this issue themselves.

How by using the ACLU to get civil union/marriage rights? Again is that a bad thing? only if you view homosexuality as a disease or as a “kink”.

and the amendment is a response to their demands by a frightened public that sees ‘gay’ and ‘raging drag queen’ as equivalent.

well what about all the great heterosexual examples. Like Angelina Joline kissing her brother? God, why do we allow such garbage to marry? Because of that NO heterosexuals should be able to marry.

The problem all stems from how it was gone about.

No, the problem stems from over-reaction from two communities, one of which you are a part of.

1. the conservative christian community

2. the non-religious community who views homosexuality as a corruption, disease etc.

The homosexual community didn’t exactly put their best foot forward when they started lobbying-

yeah rosie o’donnel wasn’t exactly the best choice to get married in san francisco he?

the most vocal of them reinforce and glorify the worst sterotypes about themselves, it seems to me. Huh. Kinda like Christians, now that I think of it.

and the most vocal heterosexuals, reinforce the stereotypes about heteros. Does that make it true?

As far as how I feel about a Constitutional amendment? Call me a bigot, but it makes me sad to think that the constitution will even mention homosexuality, no matter which way it rules.

I don’t think that makes you a bigot, I think it’s sad the constitution required an ammendment for blacks and womens voting. These things should be required.

But, it will- of that I’m convinced. If Bush’s amendment fails, then some other amendment proposed by the other side will pass. So what do I do?

well there’s no doubt that now, if bushes ammendment does pass, and is ratified by the house and senate, it will be repealed by the next majority who will place in their own ammendment protecting their rights. Unless that majority is muslim or mormon.

I hear what you’re saying, and it makes sense- in an idealistic sort of way. But “homosexuals get their tax break and then go back to keeping their sex lives to themselves like in the Good Old Days”

seriously do you make it a point to watch homosexual sex? if not then they are keeping it to themselves.

honestly has not been presented to me as an option I can believe in. No. Either conservatives hold the line, or else the small town I grew up in becomes like the Castro district. That, I believe.

the small town you grew up in will one day get a walmart, and change into a medium sized town, then into a large town.
it’s the nature of progress. as a town becomes larger, fewer people in that town rely on the old morals to guide them. like I don’t think it’s a sin to be gay. But when I lived in a small religious community I believed that they were sinning in gods will. Moving to a big city changes your perspective. You see that gays are just trying to live like all the rest of us, they just happen to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex.

In the end is that so bad? It’s not like it’s a contagible disease, OH NO HOMOSEXUALITY I’M GONNA CATCH IT!

I really don’t understand your problem with this beyond the bible. it’s clear that we can’t rely on the bible as a gold standard. For one thing computers would be considered witchcraft by the writers of the bible.

Calm down scyth,

Perhaps living in Slick Rock Idaho most of my life has helped me to learn how to live with ultra-conservatism, but somehow, we have to appeal to reason and calmly put a big spotlight on the irrationality we all too often face.

I’ve calmed down quite a bit now, but I’m still pissed off that people can be so irrational about denying gays basic human rights. It’s like “are we blind to the history we’ve made”?

It’s not as simple as granting them civil unions alot of the anti gay movement doesn’t even want that. Which I find Hilarious, because do they seriously think that denying a couple a civil union or a marriage liscence (which is state ran not religious ran) is going to instantly “cure” them and they’ll go straight. Scared straight because they can’t marry.

please.

The very fact we call a hetero straight shows the problem with our culture and homosexuality. Does that make homo = wrong? No. of course not, it’s a divergent sexuality, that as another poster pointed out is a natural cause of evolution.

[tentative]

Uccisore,

I have to agree that neither side of this issue “put their best foot forward”, but that is the nature of how we get our information from any media source. A calm presentation of the real issues involved is ignored in favor of the most extreme positions taken by either side. The trick is to look in the middle and spend a little time trying to sort out the real issues, which in this case, is blatant discrimination against a minority group. It doesn’t mean I have to agree with, or like what the minority group represents. It does mean that I must not allow the creation of laws to perpetuate that discrimination. That’s what our democratic republic is about. Every morning in thousands of classrooms children say “…with liberty and justice for all.” Do we really believe that?

I too worry about the direction of many of our national policies and our social mores. The small town doesn’t exist anymore, I’m sorry to say. This computer and the internet guarantees that. I’m boggled at the red herrings drug across the path of discourse on real social issues. We are in a great national debate about a small group of people whose sexual practices fall outside the norm. As this debate rages on, our children turn on the television to watch the latest Brittany Spears video, or one of the BS wannabes. They’re supposedly singing something, but the video is about presenting the female body in as many sexually explicit poses as possible. It’s soft porn best case. Who’s raising hell about this? Is this acceptable because it’s a hetero presentation? Great. Just great. The message to our daughters is that it’s OK to be a visual whore. Wear those transparent white hiphuggers to show off that thong. Oh, and don’t forget the DSD tattoo. And to our young men. It’s just fine to look at women as just a surface presentation. It doesn’t matter if they have a brain or not as long as they have nice tits and that tight little ass. Gotta have me one of them meat puppets. And we’re worried about homosexual unions?

Uccisore, we have lots of problems both morally, spiritually, and every other way. But we need to stay in the middle of the road and not be distracted bt the extremist - on either side of any argument.

JT

[Uccisore]

A calm presentation of the real issues involved is ignored in favor of the most extreme positions taken by either side.

This is true. It’s hard to even talk about the issue lots of times, because whoever you’re already talking to thinks they know everything you’re going to say, and everything you believe before you open your mouth.

which in this case, is blatant discrimination against a minority group.

Well, now this I disagree with. There’s nothing gays aren’t allowed to do that straight people are. There is something about them that makes them not want to engage in some of the rights available to everyone, and the argument is that because of that, previously illegal behavior should be legitimized. That’s an important distinction from true discrimination, which treats people differently under the same laws.

Every morning in thousands of classrooms children say “…with liberty and justice for all.” Do we really believe that?

As I've said in another thread, the argument you use here is kind of generic: It can be used to support incest, bestiality, or all sorts of behaviors as long as they are at least arguably consentual. 

As this debate rages on, our children turn on the television to watch the latest Brittany Spears video, or one of the BS wannabes. They’re supposedly singing something, but the video is about presenting the female body in as many sexually explicit poses as possible. It’s soft porn best case. Who’s raising hell about this?

You can’t raise hell about it anymore and be taken seriously, because the voice of opposition has been squashed. Back when it was Madonna and not BS, people did raise hell, the fight was fought, and liberals won. In a way, this is my point.

Is this acceptable because it’s a hetero presentation? Great. Just great.

Note that I’m not accusing YOU of what I’m about to say, but this argument is presented by liberals in general as a huge bait and switch. Liberals fought for no-fault divorce, fought for swill on the television, etc. Then they list those same things they fought for as examples of how corrupt heterosexuality is, as some sort of justification for pushing the envelope that much further. If, in another context, you would be one of those arguing for me about how The Pledge of Allegience demands letting Brittney Spears do what she wants in front of the kiddies, then I can’t accept this argument from you.

And we’re worried about homosexual unions?

I’m not AS worried about it as some of the things you listed, actually. However, homosexual unions are still a fight it’s possible to win.

[tentative]

Uccisore,

You might want to examine the gay rights issue a bit closer. Gays couples -ie- those who are in a stable monagamous ‘union’ do not have the same rights as a hetero couple. Many insurance companies do not recognize homosexual ‘spousal’ rights. Homosexual couples may not file joint tax returns. Hospitals and doctors will not allow a homosexual ‘spouse’ to have any say in the treatment of a homosexual patient. A homosexual ‘spouse’ has no social security survivor benefits. Should one of a couple die, there is no inheritance provisions because the surviving ‘spouse’ is not legally ‘next of kin’. All of theses examples are simply assumed by a hetero couple. Incidentally, both couples share the same commitment to their respective partners. Does not each couple deserve equal treatment under the law?

You mentioned the Madonna goings on and how the liberal fought for and won. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom. Do you really think that the three piece suits in the corner office are liberals? It wasn’t about public morals, it was about the MONEY.

Please take some time to examine the rhetoric of both left and right. If you look for the hidden agenda, you will find that it is most often not about ideals and values as it is about personal economic gain. YOU may have personal values, but those who orchestrate the ‘get out the vote’ could care less. They are simply manipulating one or both side to their own ends.

JT

[Uccisore]

Does not each couple deserve equal treatment under the law?

A 'couple' is an institution, not a person.  I wasn't aware the Constituion guarenteed the rights of institutions.  
An individual who chooses to live with a member of their same gender, and who utilizes the assistance of that roomate in helping them raise a child, does not gain certain benefits that married couples do get, regardless of their sexual behavior.  I lived with a guy for several years. Should I have been entitled to a tax-break during that time? Should I have had to provide proof to the Government that we were in a sexual relationship to gain that benefit?

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that MTV is a subsidiary of Viacom. Do you really think that the three piece suits in the corner office are liberals?

MTV is indeed a subsidiary of Viacom, as is VH1.  Are you implying here that any billionaire who runs a huge entertainment coorporation couldn't possibly be a liberal? Ted Turner ring any bells? Either way, these things are matters of public record. Who's the CEO of Viacom? Who did (s)he make political contributions to? Even if it turns out that the chair of CEO is a bible-thumper from way back, are you seriously trying to tell me that MTV is what it is because the [i]religious right wants it that way[/i]?  Of course not.  And of course you know that the same organizations protesting gay-marriage did and sometimes stil do protest the sexualization of television, and as I mentioned before, no-fault divorce. 

Please take some time to examine the rhetoric of both left and right.

Coorporations exist to make money. I wouldn’t equate the actions of such an institution with the intent of political organizations on either side.

[Bob]

Hi,

this discussion is disappointing since the positions are concreted in and there isn’t even the hint of anyone budging. Besides which it is a continuous repetition of arguments.

What really is disturbing is the fact that although the positions on the left try to integrate and gain civil rights for all members of society, acknowledging that Gays are not just a fashion that will go away in a couple of years, the right is all for conserving segregation. This doesn’t actually help them, but makes the situation ridiculous. Gays in Germany are fully integrated and even the Mayor of Berlin is one, but that doesn’t mean that we are continually confronted with problems caused by such integration.

My posts suggest that gays are a natural occurence in situations where a society is under duress, but not something that can be ‘healed’. The biblical record is critical in places, but generally towards degenerate promiscuity, not particularly towards gay couples living as in a marriage. I know lesbians who live as a married couple and I find them very ‘normal’. There was a saying in the seventies over here: ‘It isn’t the homosexual that is queer, but the situation they are forced to live in!’

Shalom
Bob

[Dread]

@Bob

Hi,

The issue of Gay marriages has been made into an issue of Morality. To be pro or contra is a judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character, and assumes that there is a polarity that must be upheld. Here is no moral quandary, here is clear cut right or wrong. Yes or No, do or don’t, with us or against us, with them or with us. The ‘good’ are the heteros and the ‘bad’ are the gays.

Leaving aside the command not to judge other people, the one thing that is lacking in this argument to my mind, is that those deciding against gay marriages haven’t got all information – in fact they refuse to accept some evidence for the defence. Gays aren’t going to become heteros, so how can we integrate them into society? Or is that as ‘bad’ as being one yourself? Are we expected to marginalise them and have them remain on the verge of civilisation?

There is no way that gay people are going to become heteros, so how do we combat something like aids? We ensure that promiscuity ceases, we reduce the amount of sexual partners gay people have and do that by enabling them to marry or have the same chances as married couples. Or do we want them to be promiscuous and have abstruse relationships?

If morality includes teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior, then I think that a modern society that marginalises members of society who merely have different sexual relations than others fails to reach that goal. Do I judge a twenty-five year old woman, who is married to a sixty year old man in the same way, because I may find it revolting? Do I judge the sexual habits of too numerous to mention heteros as ‘bad’, because I may think that sex is for conception, not for fun? What else am I going to start judging if this goes on?

Of course we are talking about conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior – but surely within my own community or acquaintences. Is our society not big enough to give other communities their civil rights? Or are we bent upon making our society into a christian theocracy and God help the sinner? When old Germans reflect the time of Hitler, they sometimes say, “at least we were all decent and you could walk the streets without being molested!” It was a time of ‘Law and Order’ when judicial punishment could be a beating in the street from the Police at whim. Fact is, that the streets were absolutely not safer, especially if you were suspected of being a Jew or a ‘Gypsy’. In the days before Hitler came to power, social democrats couldn’t roam the streets for fear of being killed.

It is the same with the idea that in a Christian society, the streets would be safer – it would not be safe to be gay, nor to be an atheist – what else could incur the wrath of God? If there is no room for the dissident, even if it is an alternative lifestyle, then there is no freedom. Facism is a system of government marked by the centralisation of authority, by stringent socioeconomic controls, by suppression of opposition through terror and censorship, and typically by a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism – and could be forthcoming in a theocracy.

The mistakes of the past, including the mistakes of Calvinism, are being repeated. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the last years of Calvin’s life at Geneva were given over to despotic theocratic rule wherein Calvin’s Institutes had the weight of state-enforced religion: “In November, 1552, the Council declared that Calvin’s Institutes were a 'holy doctrine which no man might speak against.” and also, “Within five years fifty-eight sentences of death and seventy-six of exile, besides numerous committals of the most eminent citizens to prison, took place in Geneva. The iron yoke could not be shaken off. In 1555, under Ami Perrin, a sort of revolt was attempted. No blood was shed, but Perrin lost the day, and Calvin’s theocracy triumphed.”

There may be people who will be glad to return to these times!

Shalom
Bob

I enjoyed reading your essay:) Im not going to comment on it, but add my own statements.

It is pure hate shining through hipocrisy. Gays are clearly human so they must be gods children as well. How do you justify records of Gays throughout history?(Satan most likely, basically a name slapped on to the problem of evil) Call it a trend a disease? Deny respect to proof as you so love to do? This is their strategy. They accept faith without evidence. And they dont accept any evidence that doesnt suppor their faith. So in a sense, they would probably maintain their beliefs even they were proven wrong. Arrogance like was said above. But you cannot call this stupidity, for that is fallacy. You do not know that they are stupid, all you know is that they are arrogant, and stubborn by observing their actions. Just as you maintain stubborn arrogance in maintaining your stance. In a way it is needed. The only thing you can do is pile up proof until it is undeniable. Absolutly undeniable. Where they have no scapegoat, even their religion.

Again utility outside of god, you can maintain a healthy populous growth for your early society by calling Gays sinners. Anyone found gay would most likely disappear, and you can keep the populous adding to your Army. Every early society needed a huge army. This was all they had, no guns, bombs, planes. Just people with swords or some other archaic murder tool. The only way you can build more units and add to this army is through reproduction. Gays did not help this. Just a theory

[Bob]

Hi Dread,

It is pure hate shining through hipocrisy.

What are you saying here? I have great difficulty in understanding what you are commenting on. Are you in agreement and commenting upon the dealing of society with gays, or are you in disagreement and criticising my piece? We need clarity.

Shalom
Bob

[tentative]

Uccisore,

I can’t tell if you are missing the point, or if you’re trying to ‘abstract’ the issue to make it more palatable. It is true that marraige (religious) and the civil wedding license (legal) are an institution of sorts. The couples inside that union are real flesh and blood people like yourself. Like you, they are capable of pleasure, pain, happiness, and disappointment. Like you, gays wish to make a public committment to one another, whether before God, or a Justice of the Peace. I’ve been married to the same woman for over 35 years (I keep telling her it has to be at least 50 )and not once did I ever look at her as an ‘institution’.

On to the real controllers. Again, I can’t tell if you are missing the point or are simply… missing the point. My reference to MTV and the like doesn’t have anything to do with liberal/conservative. One more time, it’s about the MONEY. They will use your morals, your values, telling you what you want to hear, and do that which is diametrically opposed to your morals and values if they can make a dime.

I suppose this is simply a reiteration, but look to the middle and ignore the extremes. You don’t have to like or support everything in your society, but you need to be very careful when enacting laws that limit other people’s freedoms when they actions do not affect you directly.

Just an observation, it seem’s to me that a real patriot is the person willing to champion the freedom of all people, not just those who believe like I believe.

I’m through with this. I’ve said what I had to say as many ways as I know how. Either you see it or you don’t.

JT

[Uccisore]

couples inside that union are real flesh and blood people like yourself. Like you, they are capable of pleasure, pain, happiness, and disappointment. Like you, gays wish to make a public committment to one another, whether before God, or a Justice of the Peace.

  If a gay person could find a Church that would marry them, they could have the whole ceremony and many do.  Like you said, what they do before God is between them or God.  Gay people are not being restricted in any way shape or form in their [i]behavior[/i], only in certain State acknowledgements or benefits they gain from that behavior.  To make this an issue about feelings and suchlike over a certificate and a tax break is very shallow, and it also defies the appeal to 'rationality' you supposedly were making.  
I understand that these people have feelings, and that it makes them sad that they can't have a real State-acknowledged marriage, and that their feelings are important.  Once again, though, there are people out there crying in their beer because they can't marry 5 women, or their sister, or their horse.  The fact that some people are sad because they can't do something illegal is not the only consideration, and it's certainly not grounds to cry discrimination. Like I said in the other thread, the fact that masses of society find homosexuality either repulsive or immoral, and don't want their society to include it as an acceptable part of the culture, is also significant. Their feelings, and what they want out of their country is important too, and they are in greater number.  Greater than the number of people who support gay marriage, much greater than then number of actual homsexuals, and [i]extremely[/i] great compared to the number of homosexuals who actually want to get married.  The only reason you've provided for ignoring the wishes of so many for the sake of so few is your personl disdain for the masses. 

I’m through with this. I’ve said what I had to say as many ways as I know how. Either you see it or you don’t.

Thank you for suppressing your revulsion for my point of view. [/i]