On the sickness of our community

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

What definition are you using?

Why is it that "disrespect" for homosexuals (by opposing Gay Marriage) is something that should get you banned, but "disrespect" for the Catholic Church (a crucifix suspended in urine) is something to be praised?

You need to be able to tolerate other people's beliefs. Their actions are something to respond to, but you need to keep the response appropriate. Scorched Earth tactics against anyone who disagrees with you is not a good thing.

I don't care if someone I work with is a Satan worshipper, as long as their actions at work are no different than anyone else (and yes, this does mean that I dislike the extreme religious types that shove their religion in your face all the time, even if I agree with the religion in question)

Okay, this is beyond a joke now. Your position is *insane*. Your circular arguments make no sense.

1) Calling for them to be cast out of society: this has never happened.

2) What is your definition of "opposed"? I can't find any possible meaning that would exclude public condemnation, without being so narrow that it is essentially vacuous ("opposing" something only inside your own mind is not opposition).

3) Let's take your straw man and run with it: if somebody calls for another to be "cast out of society", they are doing nothing illegal. Your argument amounts to "anything that's not actually illegal should not be publicly condemned", so you have already broken your own position by claiming that it is wrong for people to be allowed to speak out against tyranny.

It is NOT the same in all muslim countries. Even otherwise, just because some places in the world are worse doesn't mean that countries which have moved past the religion based government model should go back to it.

>but you somehow cannot respect them for being honest when they state that their opposition is not because it's 'icky' but because they see it as redefining what marriage is.

Marriage has been redefined many many times where originally it was about treating women as property to most recently to allow interracial marriages in U.S. Pretending as if had the same definition and purpose throughout history is counter factual.

The level of support for a discriminatory cause does not make it less discriminatory. It just shows that people are afraid of change, probably because they belong to the majority that isn't discriminated against.

Even so, we're not talking about any average person here. We're talking about a person that has a leading position in a community and thus is representative for said community.

Admittedly I would feel uneasy with such co-workers, but of course I wouldn't call for their resignation. It's a wholly different thing when it's someone high up in the hierarchy however. With great power comes great responsibility. People higher in the hierarchy of power should be held to higher standards.

BTW, who said anything about giving Muslim countries that stone homosexuals or rape victims a free pass? Well, the US foreign policies towards some of them seem to be very forgiving (for some reason anything Saudi Arabia does seem to be acceptable, anything else is heavily criticised), but there seem to be no less criticism of Muslim conutries than others.

Though since the US treat several of the Muslim countries as altogether evil and assume every single Muslim to be a terrorist, it might seem as though they don't get criticized for individual things, but that's only because they're already under a blanket condemnation. Sort of like with Cuba, where singular missteps on behalf of Cuba don't get criticized much, because Cuba for some inscrutable reason is considered so utterly evil that US citizens are not even permitted to travel there (even though they're free to travel to far, far worse countries in terms of human rights).

But you know, if you cannot clean up garbage on your neighbour's yard, then at least clean up your own. Be a good example.

But now for your main argument -- that about the traditional meaning of marriage throughout history:

Various past traditional marriages:

* Arranged marriages

* Polygamy

* The groom paying the father of the bride for the right to marry her

* The father of the bride paying the groom to get rid of his daughter
| obviously these two did not apply at the same time :)

* Rape victims being "avenged" by having their rapists marry them

* Levirate marriage (widows being forced to marry their brother in law)

* Children being wedded to grown-ups

You seem to suffer from the widespread, but false, notion that traditional means good and that it should also mean immutable.

Other traditions of the past: stoning, cutting off the hands off of criminals, flogging, spanking children, human sacrifice, etc.

Comparing a community calling for their leader to be someone who do not call for discrimination people just because of their sexual orientation with lynching is a slight bit of hyperbole, don't you agree?

Instead of defending the one male + one female "as God intended" variant of marriage based on tradition, how about you justify the discrimination of homosexuals based on reason?

Marriage serves the following purposes in modern society:

1.) Providing a simplified legal framework for inheritance
| homosexual couples need this just as much as straight couples

2.) Simplifies the process of deciding whom should be the legal guardian of children (adoptive; children from previous relationships -- some people in homosexual relationships are bisexual, others came out late, etc.; insemination; surrogate mothers, etc.)
| homosexual couples need this just as much as heterosexual couples

3.) Joint taxation
| homosexual couples would want this just as much as straight couples

4.) Joint benefits
| If a heterosexual spouse should get benefits through their company
| just for being married to one of its employees, so should
| a homosexual spouse

and the good old "traditional"

5.) Affirmation of love
| Homosexual couples love each other just as much as
| heterosexual couples do

If a church chooses not to give its blessing to a married couple just because they are homosexual, then that should be their prerogative. They should, however, not be able to have a say in whether said couple should be able to get married in the first place.

Marriage is a matter between the state and the couple and the state is (well, in the case of the US and a few other civilized countries at least) secular.

Holy matrimony is a matter between the church and the couple.

If you want to be a member of a church that wants to keep holy matrimony reserved strictly to its heterosexual members, then so be it.

If Jesus really existed (as a divine being that is, rather than just a carpenter who preached about a lot of nice things), I suspect he'd be more offended by people trying to discriminate based on whom they love. But I leave that for the churches and their congregations.

Please explain to me how, apart from a redefinition of your view of what a marriage "should" be, equal marriage rights would somehow threaten your marriage or your possibility to get married? How would it affect your daily life?

I can think of of a few things: some homosexuals around you will become happier and feel less discriminated against. Some homosexuals around you will have to worry less about their future.

Sure, there are a few minor, minor things that will influence you in a negative way: due to joint taxation there'll be slightly less tax dollars flowing to your state. But somehow I don't think this is a financial issue.

PS: Traditionally divorce was a non-existing concept, later becoming something very restricted. Nowadays there are marriages that only last a few weeks or even just a day or two.