[xoxaprilwine]

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like "Jesus was a homo," vandalize your church, publish blacklists, bully you, and otherwise act like a$$es and expect everyone to bow to their demands.

I don't agree... take a look at both arguments in detail and you might change your mind on that. I understand that marriage is a holy sacrament between man and woman... I couldn't agree more but the times are changing and the Church can't fight this anymore... it will pass. If the gays where asking to get married in the Church I would have a problem with it but their not, they simply want the same benefits as a married couple... in the eyes of the Government not the eyes of the Lord. Do we really have a right to stop them? To judge them? If they don't interfere with our religion or culture why can't we give them the same respect?

[excon]

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like.....

Hello Steve:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

A GREAT conservative said that.

excon

[speechlesstx]

What's funny here is I linked to actual examples of the insane rage, intolerance, violence and criminal activity of gay activists and you're all defending them. Their behavior certainly makes me want to sit down and talk things out.

[excon]

Their behavior certainly makes me want to sit down and talk things out.

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't interested in talk. We KNOW what you guys think. Interested in ACTION!!

excon

[tomder55]

Back on page 10 I said the positions were intractable. I will also add that now positions are hardening making compromise virtually impossible. Thus any action by proponents of either side suddenly becomes acceptable?

Frequently abortion clinic bombers are condemned and rightly so ;not so easily excused as extremism in defense of a cause.

[excon]

Hello tom:

I don't think bombing is what Goldwater had in mind. You know there IS a difference between disobedience and committing a criminal act.

Here's the problem. When considering someone's civil rights, there is NO acceptable compromise. Would you compromise YOURS?? I don't think you would.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't interested in talk. We KNOW what you guys think. Interested in ACTION!!!!

excon

And we offered compromise, that WAS action. You're asking us to concede everything instead of finding a solution that could be agreeable to all.

[excon]

And we offered compromise, that WAS action. You're asking us to concede everything instead of finding a solution that could be agreeable to all.

Hello again, Steve:

The solution that is ALREADY agreeable to us all can be found in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think you understand. We're talking about RIGHTS here. We're not negotiating a contract.

What compromise is there from the word ALL?? Some?? Almost?? Maybe? Close, but not quite??

There is NO compromise in our founding documents. Jefferson didn't say SOME. He said ALL men are created equal and they are ALL endowed with certain unalienable rights... Those are the rights that YOU have, yet you want to compromise on others having the same rights. It ain't going to happen.

No, let me rephrase what I said above. You DON'T understand if you think compromise is a solution.

Maybe you don't understand the founding documents. I actually think you DO, but I think you're so blinded by your religion, that you just can't see the words that Jefferson wrote...

I don't know, Steve. But, I'm going to keep on trying with you.

excon

[speechlesstx]

There is NO compromise in our founding documents. Jefferson didn't say SOME. He said ALL men are created equal and they are ALL endowed with certain unalienable rights....

And we've addressed that, the founders appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” and relied on “the protection of Divine Providence” to ensure these rights “endowed by their Creator” such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we want to base our arguments on the Declaration of Independence then we have other issues to discuss, but I’m always told the Declaration is irrelevant in those discussions.

The compromise I’m referring to allows for equal benefits for a relationship that can never be equal to heterosexual marriage. Why should we call something the equivalent of something it can never be equal to, and if the benefits and privileges are the same why isn’t that enough? That’s all they wanted before, and what will be the next configuration of “marriage” we allow?

[tomder55]

If the founding documents began and ended with the Declaration then I might agree with you . But the operating manual of our government ;the Constitution is itself a tribute to compromise. It would not have been adopted without them.

Marriage as defined is a "right" no one is denied. Changing the definition is the issue .

[excon]

Marriage as defined is a "right" no one is denied. Changing the definition is the issue

The compromise I'm referring to allows for equal benefits for a relationship that can never be equal to heterosexual marriage. Why should we call something the equivalent of something it can never be equal to

Hello tom and Steve:

Sorry, fellas. You are still looking at this issue through the prism of your church... I am looking at it through the prism of the Constitution. I am right.

If we were talking about RELIGION, then your arguments have merit. But, we're NOT talking about religion. We're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS!!

To wit:

Tom you see marriage defined as between a man and a woman. To me, that's a RELIGIOUS viewpoint.

I see marriage as an event the state recognizes and grants rights to the married. That's a secular viewpoint.

Steve, you see a homosexual marriage as unequal, I suppose because they can't propagate. That a religious viewpoint.

I see marriage as a bond between two people, and whether they can propagate or not, isn't an issue. That's a secular viewpoint.

You cannot force your religious values on people. It's UNAMERICAN. It's an anethema to the American way. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It ain't right. And, it ain't going to fly.

excon

[tomder55]

It isn't going to fly ? Unless the courts do another imperial fiat and force cultural change on the country then it will fly.
The fact is that everywhere it has been put to the ballot ;gay marriage has been voted down... even in the bluest of blue states California.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

As I've said many times on these pages, the majority cannot vote out the civil rights of the minority.

Even in the blue states, where the RED stated Mormon church spent zillions to pass the proposition. I wonder why they did that if it WASN'T a religious issue.

Nope, the civil rights of the oppressed WILL be recognized. This is a GREAT country, where even though it might take a while, we DO recognize our core values. Those values are ones of INCLUSION - not exclusion as you would have it be. I don't know where you get that exclusion stuff.

I have every confidence that Obama WILL appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rectify this wrong. We shall overcome.

excon

PS> Fiat?? Tom, you CAN read where it says ALL, can't you?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

[speechlesstx]

I intentionally omitted the church in my position, someone else injected the church into this, not me. But since those rights you mentioned are endowed by our Creator as defined by the founders I suppose it is appropriate to consider the religious view on this, right? But since you’ve backed away from justifying your position based on the Declaration, at least show us exactly in the constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage since I must have missed that somewhere. The people in California have spoken, what is the constitutional basis for overturning their will?

What I stated is simply a fact. It is entirely impossible for a gay marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage, they may both be “a bond between two people” but they cannot be equal, in procreation, sexually, emotionally or otherwise. Face it, men and women are different, marriage is historically, traditionally, predominantly between a man and a woman for good reason and calling it something else doesn’t change that.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Do you want me to give you the "Constitution doesn't list rights" lecture again? Nahh, we're going round in circles.

Good thing Obama is going to fix it. But, I'll bet the California Supreme Court will fix it first.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I knew we would just go around in circles right off the bat. We'll see what the courts do soon enough I'm sure.

[tomder55]

Ex : recommended reading :
Amazon.com: The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (American Politics and Political Economy Series): Gerald N. Rosenberg: Books

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 gay marriage decision led to over 30 States taking it to the ballot and approving bans . Gerald Rosenberg in the book above correctly argues that judicial fiat in fact sets back the social change that was sought by the decision.

Civil unions on the other hand are supported by the majority because it is a reasonable solution.
Polls: Gay civil unions favored - Same-Sex Marriage - MSNBC.com

You claim it is our religion that is the problem ;but it seems to me that you are the absolutist .
Maybe when the populace becomes "more enlightened " then support will grow .But for now the political waters have been tested and the country isn't there yet.

[excon]

But for now the political waters have been tested and the country isn't there yet.

Hello again, tom:

Well, me and my pink tighted friends are going to see if we can't coax it along.

excon

[xoxaprilwine]

Synnen, I said there were alternative ways to have a child...but it still requires both sexes (that is until we start cloning people like sheep). As for the bible and multiple wives, there are certainly conflicts with God's ideal and what man has actually done, otherwise we might still be living in a perfect world...but Adam and Eve blew that right off the bat.

I think I heard my brother say... the reason why they had multiple wives... is because men are pigs! - He said it not me :) So I couldn't agree more.

[talaniman]

Eventually gay marriage will have equal protection under the law, as we well know, nothing changes until the oppressed, or the minority, have raised enough hell. That's been true of every rights movement in history. It looks as if the gay marriage folks have escalated to invading churches. Good for them. Wonder what's next?? Is denying them a piece of paper, and a few tax breaks, worth holding on to some outdated traditions?