On the sickness of our community

No, I'm not calling for about half the country to lose their jobs. I'm fairly sure I didn't say that supporting discrimination to be harassment either. But I definitely think it's problematic. No matter how many supported it. Women's suffrage had a lot of opponents too. Racial discrimination was supported by a lot of people. Support for slavery even was a contributing factor to civil war.

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.