[CaptainHaplo]

I am going to skip some stuff because I think its better we just move forward.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You've said many times that you believe gays should accept what they're given. How else do you enforce that if not by government?

I'll repeat myself. You have said many times you are against gay "marriage". Please explain how you enforce that if not by government.

I can believe they shouldn't be married. That doesn't mean that I think the power of Government should be used to prohibit it. I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix". Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract. If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.

As I said - I would prefer government be out of it. However, if the alternative is governmental interference - then it should be done in a way that is constitutionally correct. While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more.

Fair and valid point. I'll apologise here and now for falling into that line of argument.

Apology accepted and its water under the bridge.

Then why bring up his status at all? There was no point to that.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible. If he was "just" a regular member - the analogy of a moderator/politician speaking from an offical position vs speaking as a private individual wouldn't work. A moderator here is "like" a subsim gov't official. See the analogy? Takeda has always done a great job seperating the two - and I was holding him up as an example of what some politicians SHOULD be doing - keeping the two roles seperate. Hopefully, it makes more sense now.