True, but one could counterargue "Dammit, we got rid of your tyrant and his sons who were even worse and all the damned deck of cards!--what the hell more do you want form us?"

If the insurgency didn't exist and all they had to deal with was just putting shit back together & making it work, I'd say that was a fair point. But to walk away and just let the power vacuum enable another such leader and his sons, or something worse, might not be the best choice. For them or us.

Homosexuals INVITE the public into their bedrooms, and then get all huffy when that same public is repulsed by what they see.

That's been my sore spot too. I would have preferred they stayed in the closet, but at least show some real dignity in lieu of so many caricaturing their own lifestyle. 

"Good point, but then you don't seem to get uptight over private lifestyles; unfortunately too many do."

You've kind of avoided the question. You said "Gays will not admit they've gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority's sanctity of marriage". Would you be so kind as to enunciate how you believe they're treading on the majority's sanctity of marriage?

Not trying to be confrontational here; I really would like to know. You seem like you're reasonable enough to have a genuine discussion about it rather than the usual response I get, which is to have talking points ("unenlightened presuppositions", if you prefer) parroted angrily at me.

Sure, as long as they do the same for polygamists, polyandrists, Master/slave unions, first generation relatives who wish to marry, and that crazy guy on Jerry Springer who wants to marry his horse

Whoa there!

You've kind of avoided the question.

Perhaps I was evasive; though gays obviously do not think they are treading on straight marriage, those who think of marriage of man and woman as sanctified by God perceive inverts as mocking their belief. When in Rome...don't flaunt the exceptionable[objectionable?] of course, straights should also show some control in what others feel.

Well, I hate to say it, but that's not much of an answer either. Just because some people "perceive" something, it does not necessarily follow that it is true. (Indeed, wasn't it you yourself who spoke of "egos driven emotionally by unenlightened presuppositions"?)

You were the one who initially made the statement that "gays will not admit they've gone too far in their Me-ism craze to tread on the majority's sanctity of marriage". So, what are *your* reasons for stating that it *actually* treads upon the sanctity of marriage (rather than merely upsetting people who think gay marriage shouldn't happen)?

how exactly is it that giving gays the right to marry treads on the sanctity of my marriage? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen any explanation of how two married guys (or gals) living next door in any way damages the loving bond my wife and I have, or vows we made to each other.

It goes back to the "uptightness" that obviously is not your proclivity; still, there are far too many who find in-your-face gay marriage as offensive to religious beliefs--thus, uenlightened presuppositions from both sides.

What you're saying in every one of your responses to my question is very different from your original statement. In your original post, you didn't say that some people FEEL that gays have gone too far, you said that gays won't admit that they HAVE gone too far; that they ARE treading on the majority's sanctity of marriage.

So without bringing subjective interpretations ("what some people feel") into it, in what objective, concrete way (or ways) does gays getting married ACTUALLY damage the sanctity of anyone else's marriage?

So without bringing subjective interpretations ("what some people feel") into it, in what objective, concrete way (or ways) does gays getting married ACTUALLY damage the sanctity of anyone else's marriage?

Touché. If you're a cement block, you're not offended or feel threatened. But when a can of worms is opened sensitized people do get upset and feel threatened that if not in their time, in their children;s time marriage would have lost its sanctity. Finally, and repeatedly WE are talking perceptions and not facts--people do make a hill of beans out of nothing. 

Once again, not a single word about how the sanctity of marriage is *actually* damaged by giving gays the right to marry.

Clearly, I was mistaken about the possibility of a genuine discussion on the topic; you won't or can't answer the question, even though you were the one who made the original statement.

Thanks anyway.

Brave attempt, J.I. to get a reasonable discussion going - and Stevendedalus is one of the 'liberals' here!

Two completely separate things are being conflated here: the contract of marriage (a concern of the state) and the 'sanctity' of marriage (a religious idea).

The state has no more right to withhold recognition of marriage to same sex couples than it did withholding voting rights from women and black people. This is much more clearly understood in Europe and Canada (and is even being discussed in Asia!!!), but Americans still seem to be a bit more uptight about it, so expect to see gay marriage recognised in Cambodia before it is fully implemented in the USA. (Seriously; the former King has been arguing in favour of it there). Arguments about polygamy, incest and marrying horses are irrelevant. Some people argued that giving the vote to women would automatically lead to votes for children too. The problem with the 'slippery slope' argument is that it falsely posits that any change fatally undermines our ability to draw the line.

As to a religious definition of marriage - and its 'sanctity', that is a matter for individual churches and religions to decide on. No church should be 'forced' to conduct gay marriages that it strongly disagrees with for scriptural, traditional or theological reasons. Happily, no one is really suggesting that they be so. Religious affiliation is voluntary - if you join (or remain in) a religious body, you accept its rules; membership of the state is not.

As to those uptight enough to be irked by having gay sexuality 'thrust in their faces' (I imagine this is a reference to OTT carnival floats at gay pride parades; otherwise it could simply be irritation at any gay visibility at all), there is help on the way...

... I have argued before, but its worth saying again, all the best arguments for gay marriage are conservative. More convincing than any left-wing 'equality' argument, is the fact that, allowed to live lives of shameless hedonism and irresponsibility, once legal and social constraints were finally loosened, many gay men and women have discovered an essential emptiness in endless clubbing, partying and promiscuity. Instead they seek authentic relationships, commitment and fidelity. Of course if you are 'born again', you know that the answer is for these poor people to pray to Jesus to make them straight, but here on Planet Earth, where we realise that homosexuality is not simply going to go away, we need another strategy...

... prison, assault, mockery, social ostracism and the hangman's rope didin't really work. The brighter conservatives (including David Cameron, the new Tory leader in the UK) have concluded that making gays 'respectable' is the way to go. Gay couples with mortgages, rose covered cottages, and white picket fences, going to bed at 10 pm after a mug of cocoa, will only help to strengthen a traditional lifestyle (including faithful monogamous marriage) which many heterosexuals are abandoning .

To return to the "they thrust their sexuality in our faces" argument, the fact of the matter is that it is sexuality in general that is thrust in our faces in most western societies, and to choose to only get upset about one form of it speaks volumes.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if gay couples are married by the pope. Long ago I argued that stable relationships among gays would be better and healthier for them so they can grow their love. Still, I believe they would further their cause more if they cooled their demonstrative behaviors and gradually released themselves into society. They have been invisible for so long that straights also need time to adjust. Why do you suppose Branch Rickey chose Jackie Robinson and not an even better player from the Negro League? The majority needs pampering. "Reasonable discussion" is not forthcoming in an emotionally charged issue. I think I showed great patience with Icareus, even though I knew he was gadflying me; for he knew perfectly well that it was not my personal position that "marriage" of the same sex is offensive, despite my charge that they misread the public's reaction to their all or nothing demands.