The second amendment is just as foolish and just as redundant. “Passage of the amendment would allow, but not require, the legislature to implement a program of property tax relief for persons sixty-five (65) years of age or older.”

This is telling me that if we pass the amendment that the legislature isn’t bound by our vote. They can implement a plan or not. Hell they don’t need our permission to pass property tax relief for seniors. The only way that I would agree with this kind of tax relief is if all abated taxes were repaid to the state at a time when the house is sold. I can’t see abating the property taxes for seniors when the property is going to be passed on to Junior so he/she can rent or sell the property for an unearned profit.

I’m against it.

Sorry, I’m just stingy like that.

“The fact that their bigotry…” You mean because a group disagrees with your view of homosexuality, they are bigoted? Hmmm. What would that make you my friend?

Yeah, your views of Christians and conservatives are nearly famous in this net community, but your lack of patience with the faith and views of others doesn’t make you right, and it doesn’t help you make your point any more than does AT’s rhetoric.

Indeed. And just like those that oppose gay marriage claim to be Christian. Who are you to deny the Christianity of the KKK but to validate the Christianity of homophobes?

“You mean because a group disagrees with your view of homosexuality, they are bigoted? Hmmm. What would that make you my friend?”

Well, if opposing homophobes makes me a bigot, I’ll cop to bigotry against homophobes. And while I’m at it, I’ll cop to bigotry against Nazis, the KKK, anti-semites, and racists. Yep, I’m bigoted against bigots. Proudly.

” . . . your lack of patience with the faith and views of others doesn’t make you right, and it doesn’t help you make your point any more than does AT’s rhetoric.”

You’re right, of course. But that’s a straw man. I never claimed that the validity or persuasiveness of my argument rested on my impatience.

What makes me (and AT) right is that I (we) understand that when two people love one another enough to want to get married, it shouldn’t matter whether the consenting adult they want to marry is the same sex as them or not.

So you can see that my views have nothing to do with my feelings, positive or negative, about Christianity.

The fact that I’ve worked at a Jesuit Christian university for nearly 20 years also does violence to your phony charge of anti-Christian bigotry.

More precisely, Jesuit Catholic, though these terms are essentially interchangable.

Evidently you and AT will have to console each other that you are both right. A large majority of the population in this country disagrees with you as well as the state legislatures of 49 states.

Like I said up thread, I personally disagree with same sex marriage. I have also said that the reasons for my opinion are personal and due to my religious beliefs. I recognize that all americans should have equal rights under the law and civil union would offer equal rights.

I completely agree.

Indeed.

There was a time in this country when a similar majority disagreed with me WRT to slavery, the right of women to vote, and the right of African-Americans to equal access to public accommodations. Those folks were wrong then, and the folks opposing gay marriage are wrong today, for similar reasons. Being in a minority doesn’t make me wrong.

Put simply, there are people who would approve the concept of civil unions, but who oppose gay marriage. Maybe it’s not logical, but voting rarely is.

Indeed.

It will take another generation, but laws against gay marriage will disappear just like laws against miscegenation. The last laws against interacial marriage in the US were not repealed until 2000.

Yup. The path to enlightenment is a rocky one. In the end, most don’t walk it. Instead, we wait for another generation that is willing to challenge the assumptions of the past.

Horseshit AT. Look I can respect your pov. Just don’t try to wrap your obvious lack of patience for other views in some kind of martyred whine. When you say, “The only real argument made is 1) Teh gay is icky; and 2) It makes baby Jesus cry.” You have made a statement of your opinion that shows your dislike for a Christian point of view. It is condescending and disrespectful.

Look, as I said, I can respect your point of view. Just don’t expect me to accept the label of bigot because you happen to disagree with me.
.

Or will you just content yourself with your own martyred whine? ‘Cause the whine is all I’m hearing so far.

http://www.ralphmag.org/tise.html

And, of course, the bible has been interpreted many ways WRT marriage (and divorce):

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Sanders0722.htm

So the bible doesn’t provide much guidance here.

My point is very simple. How is the argument enhanced by starting the conversation by insulting a group of people?

“Cause the whine is all I’m hearing so far.” This is pretty typical of you Joel, so I don’t expect you to give much thought to my disagreement.

If that’s all you’ve got then, yes, I don’t give that any thought. It doesn’t deserve any.

I know too many gay folks in stable, monogamous relationships to respect the POV of anyone who would deny them the recognition that my marriage is accorded.

What I found insulting was the way that AT started his diatribe. I’m not at all surprised that you don’t understand though Joel, because you don’t want to understand what may be insulting to someone else. The very nature that you show, those of us who are foolish to disagree with you, is insulting. You are simply unable to have a disagreement with someone without calling names and labeling people with slurs.

So far in this thread you have compared conservative Christians to “Islamic terrorists.” You have insinuated that I am a homophobe and a bigot. All because you and I don’t share the same point of view.

Enough man. You are just trying to keep something going that should have been settled several posts ago.

It is sad that you have such a generous capacity for insult, yet your ability to see how your views are insulting to others is so limited. Matthew 7:3

Now come back when you have some decent argument defending this horseshit referendum, but only after you’ve given it some real thought, and not a knee-jerk reaction based on conditioning by your religious leaders.

“Now come back when you have some decent argument defending this horseshit referendum, but only after you’ve given it some real thought, and not a knee-jerk reaction based on conditioning by your religious leaders.”

As you may recall AT, I didn’t try to defend the referendum. I agreed with your original conclusions. I think that you and Joel are the ones with chips on your shoulders, because I disagreed with your view of same sex marriage.

The only point that I have tried to make, without any success, is that using the phrase “it makes baby Jesus cry” instead of a simple reference to religious belief was intended to be insulting. That seems pointless to me. I’m not crying in my beer or thumping my bible because you said something silly. I just didn’t understand the need for the reference.

I haven’t tried to limit anyone’s rights. In fact I said up thread how I think all Americans should share the same rights. You also know, since you asked me directly within the past few weeks, that having a homosexual in my home would not be a problem for me. You may recall that I laughed at the notion that I would have been uncomfortable. I’m not trying to change anyone or trying to persecute anyone for the way that they live their lives or for what they think fellas, you are.

No guys I’m not the one with a chip on my shoulder. You both seem deeply bothered by the idea that I disagree with this one point. I haven’t made a big deal about it…you two have.

Uh, actually, no. What you posted on October 7th, 2006 | 4:47 pm:

“Like I said up thread, I personally disagree with same sex marriage. I have also said that the reasons for my opinion are personal and due to my religious beliefs.”

“I haven’t made a big deal about it…you two have.”

Uh, actually, no. Neither of us made a big deal out of the “baby Jesus” line. You did. You took offense, and a major theme of your comments here concerned the offense you took at our failure to appreciate how offensive this was to you. That’s what I meant by your having a chip on your shoulder.

I’m always amazed at how quickly folks here and at the OR Forum translate disagreement into personal terms. I read the “baby Jesus” snark in the context of the “Teh gay is icky” snark that preceded it. They are just modern formulations of what could have been translated as: 1) homosexual activity is repulsive to some and 2) Christian religious dogma forbids it. I didn’t detect condescention, just an effort to encapsulate these positions in a distinctive grammar. The willingness to adopt the posture of victimhood rather than engaging the actual issues is telling here. Someone is feeling threatened and it ain’t me.

When did you start a thread about religion AT?

Yup.

If we could get back on point, NM summed up fairly succinctly what I was rambling on about upthread. Terminology is our suspect here. Most (but definitely not all) gays and lesbians would be ok with just a civil union. Many more constituents would be ok with allowing civil unions, as long as it wasn’t tied in to a religious ceremony.
And with regards to the referendum, it’s just bullying, like AT said. There’s no reason to have it on the books, because it’s just redundant. You can’t make it illegaler.
And I can dig the idea of the second referendum. Giving old people on fixed income, the ones who really really need it, sure. But you shouldn’t give a group of people a tax break based on only one qualifier.
Think of what would happen in Oak Ridge if everyone over the age of 65 didn’t have to pay taxes…

If that makes you feel better about yourself, go right ahead.

Is it an insulting metaphor? I found it rather a funny one for a most troubling support of a single religious belief in US politics. The state constitution goes so far as to ban a church minister from holding office in the state - it’s not anti-Christian to do that - it’s an effort to restrict the mingling of church and state.

And history itself shows there has only been one reason for marriage ever - it is a business transaction. It’s rather a new idea for marriage to be a sacred and sanctified act of “love.”

And I love these discussions.

And agree or disagree with the reasons, AT is spot on that these “referendums” are a charade.