[wpietri]

Aw, that's precious. Defending the Mormons against charges of bigotry by saying it's the gay rights people who were trying to redefine marriage. coughpolygamycough And you're talking as if marriage hasn't been under rolling redefinition since Gutenberg. Women owning property, being allowed to have a profession, and having the right to vote changed marriage way more than allowing two women to get hitched and have babies.

Also, I don't think the campaign against gay marriage can be anything but bigotry. It's exactly analogous to the campaign against interracial marriage: Religious actors try to use the power of the state to stop people from doing something they think is icky. And they're doing it on the basic of intrinsic characteristics, and with absolutely zero demonstration of harm to anybody. Irrational devotion to prejudice against a group is precisely bigotry.

[resplin]

You citing a number of examples of marriage evolving and being redefined only serves to clarify how the process is continuing today and how people of all backgrounds have an interest in those issues.

Your demeaning tone and labels doesn't serve your supposedly tolerant position. I agree that everyone should be treated with respect and decency. But I also believe that there is a standard for morality that should be honored in order to promote the greatest mutual happiness.

Advocating a standard of public morality in marriage is the same as in drug control, pornography, hate speech, or any other area. We might have different opinions on what standard will bring the most happiness. We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences.

We are a bit off topic here, so I'll stop derailing the conversation.

[wpietri]

I believe everybody should be treated with respect and decency. Just as long as they are behaving respectfully and decently, and perhaps a little past. But you know what? Trying to keep loving couples from getting married and having kids is not even vaguely respectful.

The whole, "I'm going do what I can to keep you from having your civil rights, but don't be mean to me" thing is dumbfounding to me. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from having your fee-fees hurt.

Suppose I got a referendum passed that banned the Mormon Church: meetings are forbidden, Mormon marriages are nullified, and the feds start tearing down the churches. Can you honestly say that the appropriate response is a quiet, "Oh, pardon me, perhaps you could reconsider?"

[rmc]

We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences.

Nope. I do not respect a believe that my love life, and my relationships are some how inferior and "not as good" as different sex relationships. My humanity is not up for debate.