This type of language/idea is a perfect, perfect illustration of the Constantinian nominal impotence that is observable in “American Christianity,” including those called “evangelical.”

According to you, Darius, the only fair debate would be the one that you would win. So, enough already of your condescending attitude.

As for liberty being infringed, again, it all comes back to contractual law. Allow gays the ability to pack several contracts into one little certificate for a nominal fee, and then everyone gets to live by the same rules. Until that moment, you are telling those people that a different set of contractual and property laws applies to them because of our religious beliefs.

“Gay activists could have that if they wanted, but they never stop there, they fight for gay marriage and ignore all compromises for civil unions.”

Well, that’s the interesting thing about the California case, because it’s the only one where there was already an established right to have registered domestic partnerships there. So, I will agree with you there.

However, it’s your buddies in the SBC that fought tooth and nail to stop even civil unions in Vermont and Hawaii. So, don’t give me any of this “compromise for civil unions” garbage.

I think if there was a legitimate 50 state compromise made on civil unions that 95% of the gay community would be totally fine with it.

The only problem therein lies the fact that you would essentially be putting “separate, but equal” right back on the books. I don’t know how you get around that.

As for this:

‘Let them have contracts if they want, but don’t try to call it marriage.”

Fine, but then vote for the proposition that says that gays and lesbians can have all of the rights of marriage bestowed upon them for a flat fee of $20-50 (the same price as a marriage license). I can’t even imagine how much it would cost to have all of the paperwork drawn up in a lawyer’s office to ensure an LGBT couple the same rights that a married couple has.

Among consenting adults? Sure.

Again, we’re talking victimless crimes here. (that means don’t even bring up incest or NAMBLA in attempt to trip me up…)

So, what ground is there to stand on? That it stands in contrast to our society’s norms?

At that point, how far do you take it?

Do we ban Westboro Baptist Church for their God Hates America stuff?

Durian importation because it smells like rotten gym socks?

Muslims anywhere outside of Dearborn, MI?

I’m all for letting people live the lives that they want to live as long as how they live does not infringe on my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The problem with polygamy is that it’s a far more complicated issue than gay marriage. How do you deal with the idea that someone can’t take on a second or third wife and their resulting kids without going on welfare? Do we leave them to be on their own compounds, fearing the abuses that will likely happen there, or do we break up the compounds and make them live among the rest of us for the sake of transparency?

I could ask these questions all day…

Actually, that doesn’t change a thing. Men are naturally predisposed to polygamy (as shown by history), doesn’t mean that we legalize the practice or condone adulterous behavior. Furthermore, like we keep saying and you conveniently ignore because you can’t debate fairly, how is anyone’s liberty infringed by not allowing gay marriage? Let them have contracts if they want, but don’t try to call it marriage. Gay activists could have that if they wanted, but they never stop there, they fight for gay marriage and ignore all compromises for civil unions.

Your argument is based solely on your pressuppositions. There is no religious aspect, except in people’s own minds, on a state ballot. And religion, faith, secular beliefs play into every legislative bill.

“b) abortion denies the fetus the right to liberty, since it cannot have a choice as to whether or not it lives or dies.”

If you are basing this right of liberty on the Declaration of Independence then that document is not a secular document because those rights are endowed by their Creator.

And since the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was given to us by our Creator as defined by the founders in that document, then that document, by your own definition, is a religious document.

So, your argument that I cannot support a secular argument against gay marriage is inaccurate. Based on the foundational principles of governments and civilizations that so choose to define marriage as a man and a woman is adequate and appropriate for that government to so choose. Regardless of “religion.”

Genuinely curious – would you support the legalization of polygamy? If not, what’s the secular argument?

And homosexuals are allowed to be homosexual anywhere they want. They simply cannot marry.”

Ridiculous.

They still have no ironclad ways to write contracts in matters of family law. And as long as some ideologue nurse or lawyer can keep our pretend Darius and Don from #40 from having power of attorney or the ability to will property to someone else, then there need to be other safeguards in place. Address THAT, and maybe we can have a reasonable conversation.

“Also, define secular Paul.”

Not religious. Thought that one was easy.

“Forgive my stupidity, but I would have thought a democratic vote in a secular society is a secular argument. What am I missing?”

No. Allow me to use abortion as an example:

secular arguments against abortion would include:

a) abortion is murder.

b) abortion denies the fetus the right to liberty, since it cannot have a choice as to whether or not it lives or dies.

Both of those are clearly secular arguments against abortion with a clearly defined perpetrator and a clearly defined victim. There’s no need to bring religion into the picture.

However, one CANNOT do that with gay marriage.

And homosexuals are allowed to be homosexual anywhere they want. They simply cannot marry.

Also, define secular Paul.

Forgive my stupidity, but I would have thought a democratic vote in a secular society is a secular argument. What am I missing?

Want to blatantly dodge that one any more?

Seriously. Give me one fully secular argument against gay marriage.

I can come up with them for abortion.

I can come up with them for prostitution, and even drugs, even though I wouldn’t agree.

“Poor argument. We have found a gene that predisposes people to alcoholism, but they are not given the right to drive a vehicle drunk.”

Sure. But they are allowed to get drunk nearly anywhere they please.

Once again, victimless scenario vs. scenario with a clear victim.

You guys are (presumably) college educated. You should be able to do better than this!