I do see it. What I can't believe is that you can't see that it is all the same issue. Of course, I have repeated this three times, so I'm not holding out much hope.

Takeda - I don't disagree with you. I have said before on here that I don't believe it is the proper role of government to be involced in the "business" of marriage at all. The only reason they ARE involved is because they can make money off of it. License fees, seperate tax rates, etc.

My issue is not about marriage at all. My issue is governmental officials using the power of their office in an attempt to limit, cause harm to and deter a legal business from being able to engage in commerce - all based on the governmental officials personal moral views.

And my issue is that your issue is every bit as hypocritical as you claimed everyone else was. Denying life, liberty and the persuit of happiness based on personal moral views is wrong, whether that liberty is engaging in commerce or having your marriage legally recognized. To protect one man's liberty from government-enforced morality with one hand while denying another man's liberty in the name of government-enforced morality with the other is hypocrictical in even the most basic sense.

Those two issues are, in reality, the same single issue--government in your life.

Funny - we agree that government should not be involved in marriage. So I am hypocritical for agreeing with you?

Where have I denied - or try to deny - life, liberty or the pursuit of liberty? While I have a personal moral view, I have not advocated gays be killed, imprisoned or have self-determination removed from them.

And again you claim that I think it is the role of government to enforce morality in marriage - when I have made clear that ideally - government should have NO role in the question at all.

And I consistently said that both are wrong - so how am I hypocritical? Its ok to disagree with my personal moral belief, but me having a personal belief that you or others do not like doesn't make me or others who agree with me "hypocrits".

Because you still support that restriction of freedom on homosexuals.

No, you just continue to advocate the denial of the same rights that you hold.

And we are in agreement on that.

Let's be fair. You don't know what I think about God and gay marriage, but you do know what I think about civil society and gay marriage. Since we do not live in a theocracy, we seperate the two.

I refer to your repeatedly stated stance in the NC Gay Marriage Ban thread from awhile back. You do say that the government should not involve itself in marriage, but then proceed to give a myriad of reasons as to why the government should restrict homosexual unions to something less than marriage. That, combined with your stance here in support of other's basic life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is hypocritical. You would support some rights while denying others.

I support restrictions of freedom on lots of people. I support restrictions on murderers. I support restrictions on child molesters. I support restrictions on politicians. I support restrictions on pastors. I support restrictions on the mentally ill. I support restrictions on the blind. Need I go on?

Again - I haven't ever supported a RESTRICTION on homosexuals. Have I said I don't believe they should be able to redefine the term to match what THEY want it to be? Yes, but supporting a traditional definition of a word is not hypocrtical.

And here you go wrong. There is a big difference between something equal to marriage (Unions) and something LESS than marriage. I have stated my support to allow equal rights - inheritence, medical and legal, tax, etc - to homosexual couples. In fact - I even pointed out that MOST (but not all) of these "rights" are already available to homosexual partners.

So us agreeing and me stating I have no problem with homosexual couples having access to the exact same rights that come with a marriage somehow makes me hypocritical? Really? You must have a different definition of the word hypocrit than most people then.

Yes, I support the right to bear arms - but I don't support felons (like murderers) having that right. Does that make me a hypocrit? I support the right to pursue happiness, but I don't support child molesters preying on children. Does that make me a hypocrit? I support the right of free and unobstructed travel - but I do not support the right of the blind to drive. That must make me a hypocrit too, right? I support homosexuals having the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage - but I do not support a small segment of society being able to forcibly redefine a traditional, historical term for the entirity of society.

Let me be clear - I don't approve of homosexuality. However, what other people do in private is none of my business, its between them and the Almighty. He will deal with them as He sees fit.

Takeda - you call me hypocritical because I support a traditisonal definition of a word - yet is it not hypocritical for a small subset of people to require and expect that I and the rest of society must accept a homosexual redefintion of the word marriage? Its like the safety who gets beat on a downfield play, tackles the reciever as the pass is on its way, and then complains that it was the wide out's fault while asking for a flag for offensive pass interference. They say its "not fair that others force" them to accept a traditional definition, yet they simply want to be the "others" that can force a redefinition.

10 points to Haplo for the pre-season ramp up football analogy. Friggin safetys... :shifty: :)

They said a lot of those same type of things about blacks in the 1960s too. Equal rights are for everyone, no matter how small the group. Equality isn't something consented to by a popular vote, so this "small segment of society" business is an argument that holds no water.

Same old same old.:Kaleun_Yawn:
Traditional definition is a business contract between two or more parties, nothing more nothing less.
In your last foray you managed to get as far as the "tradition" where one church started stepping in and running its own version of the government business of regulating the contracts as a money making influence peddling sideline.

So you are supporting your version of a fairly modern interpretation of a much changed and much evolved word and attempting to stop history at a fixed point of your choosing and impose that forever on the rest of the world regardless of reality and your only reasoning is your interpretation of your beliefs which you think are somehow right and should count as right for others regardless of what anyone else thinks.

CAPS LOCK strikes with added emphasis:haha:, you support a restriction because you are not happy with normal definitions you don't like and wish to restrict others because you don't like it and want them to play your way instead.

Who is that bunch of "christians" who, just stopped some people getting married in a church in Miss. because they don't want no blacks ruining their fine white tradition?
Good timing eh Mookie.

This is called selective reasoning. The restrictions you cite are all based on actual harm caused. Murderers and child molesters give up their rights based on the harm cause and their denial to rights of their victims. Restrictions on the mentally ill and the blind are based on the potential harm to themselves and others. Politicians and Pastors? These are people who have control over others. They need to be monitored based on the emotional power the wield. Gay marriage has no such power, and cannot be shown to cause any such harm. Therefore your reasoning is selective, and based on personal bias rather than any real cause.

Your belief in this regard is not hypocritical. Your desire to use the government to enforce it is.

Does redifining that word cause harm to the "old school"? No. Does it hurt anyone else? No. So what's the problem, other than personal animosity? Again, the "hypocrite" part comes not from the desire to resist that change, but to use the government to enforce the resistance while claiming to be against government interference. You want it both ways, and while it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "hypocrite", it does make your line of argument less than honest.

You mean polygamy?

Honestly, I didn't think that I was going to get anywhere here. Your mind is made up, and there is no room for movement.

No, the tradition of drawing up the contract before birth, fulfillment as soon as possible after a medical examination of the goods then copulation in front of witnesses to confirm the deal was carried through then maybe pop out a couple of future assets before the bride hits the teens.

Its tradition isn't it:yep:

Again, your avoiding both the point of the thread - and the legal reality.
Are you really telling me that Federal recognition of civil unions - specifically equating them to and granting the same rights as marriage - would somehow be less than equal? So how do you figure that if 2+2 equals 4 but if you reverse the numbers to make it 2+2 it somehow doesn't equal 4 anymore? :doh:

Yes - I would support such a Federal recognition of civil unions - just as I support DoMA. There is no reason both could not exist. The reason the gay lobby doesn't want to have this is because the issue is not equal rights or acceptance - its about forcing society to mainstream their behavior whethet society wants to or not....

Now - as for the "black" argument - are you really going to try and equate people objecting of the use of the word "marriage" for relationships between homosexuals to the widespread acceptance of lynchings, denials of service in restaraunts, etc - of blacks? Try selling that to many of those that marched during that time - see what the reaction is. Equating word usage to widespread murder - that's not a stretch at all....

@SailorSteve
Politicians - exactly my original point. Politicians abusing their office to harm should be stopped. So your agreeing with me that politicians shouldn't use their office as has occured? Good.

Pastors? Pastors do not have control over people. No one makes a person go to church. No pastor can bring the force of government against someone. No pastor can require a person to act in accordance with a religious tenent or theology.

Or did you mean how pastor's are in a position of "authority" over a small subset of a community? If so - where do you draw the line - after all - Parents are a small subset of a community with authority over othes - and most parents do not agree with same sex marriage (though many, like myself, have no issue with Civil Unions) - so parents should be monitored, restricted, etc so that they teach their kids whatever moral or ethical values are acceptable before who?..... the government? the community? one or another subset of people who feel that their way is the only way? If you answer yes to any of that - would you feel the same if government, the community or some theological group wanted to teach it was ok to kill gays, the mentally retarded, the homeless, veterans, the aged or any other "group" that it found unacceptable? Of course not - but then that position would make you a hypocrit....

So tell me Steve, Mookie - do you have a problem with polygamy between consenting adults? Should such be legalized? Why or why not?

Also Mookie - do you have a problem with the actions of the mayors or the speaker of the NY city council?

No, I was pointing out that there is a valid reason for supporting restrictions on all the people you mentioned. There is no such valid reason for restrictions on gay marriage. You now attempt to skate around that point by highlighting a point of agreement.

Then why do you support restrictions on them? What restrictions were you talking about. Again you seem to be trying to change the subject by expanding on it.

None of this has anything to do with what I said. You said you supported restrictions on certain segments of society in an attempt to equate those segments with gay marriage. I pointed out that some of those segments need restrictions for specific reasons. Gays do not need those restrictions, yet you would enforce them anyway. Why are you even talking about killing anyone? This again has nothing to do with this subject.

I don't know if I have a problem with it or not. It's not something I think about. If it comes up as a topic I will think about it, and maybe form an opinion. We do have polygamy here in Utah. It's illegal, but approximately 1% of the population practice it. There are problems with fathers forcing their underage daughters into unwanted marriages, and occasionally one group has been known to blow up another group's church. On the other hand most of the adult women interviewed seem to enjoy the arrangement. As long as the harm to children and the violent activities are curtailed, and no one is hurt, I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing.

Now why don't you quit trying to change the subject?

I believe that mookie is refering to this:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-cont...-but-Equal.jpg

You are advocating a 'separate but equal' policy in terms of gay marriage. That, as history has shown, is never equal.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, polygamy should be legalized as well, and for the reasons I stated above.