May 25, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Do_unto_others wrote:

May 24, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Thank you. I would love move past broad discussion about homosexuality, and get back to the  topic. 

Good. It's well beyond time that you did. I had to plead long and hard enough to get you to come back to the topic.

May 24, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

That being, one particular representative of an obvious lunatic fringe viewpoint has apparently suggested that homosexuals be rounded up, and essentially be placed in concentration camps, so that they might be allowed to simply die off.

If it WERE just "one particular representative", I'd agree with you. It's myriad such representatives, enough so that I no longer believe that they're the "lunatic fringe". More and more, this seems to be a MAINSTREEAM "Christian" message. (Youv'e seen the long list of names of prominent such 'pastors' often enough that I should think even YOU would question that 'lunatic fringe' charge.)

May 24, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not only is what he said mean and offensive, it's also completely out of touch with reality.

Also, while it should be met with condemation, his opinon really is not all that relevant, because it is so extreme. Again, I assert, most Christians -- even those opposed to gay rights/marriage -- would not agree with these rantings. 

It is prominent and frequent enough that I simply disagree that he is "not all that relebant". Extreme, yes. But very much a part of the mainstream message that is out there.

Homophobia and other forms of bigotry and hatred are still far too common. Part of the problem, is too many people or groups trying to frame things in zero-sum terms. 

That's where the principles of tolerance (which does not require acceptance) and universal love and respect (which do not require universal approval) come in. 

Relative to your specific points here -- "mainstream message" strikes me as far too broad a term. While many faucets of religion in general and Christianity in particular might not support gay marriage, or approve of homosexuality, there are a huge range of views on the subject, even within that general spectrum.

The particular message here, by our "pastor" in the video, is extreme by almost all standards. Not to mention, hateful and totally out of touch with reality. 

May 24, 2012 -- 7:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've explained, clearly, why it would be reasonable to conclude there is no objective equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality.

I've yet to see a single rational argument to the contrary. 

I've said nothing about equality between people, as individuals. I've known homosexuals who I considered to be better people than I. 

Furthermore, do you think that having a disorder or dysfunction makes a person less human, less worthy as a human being, or the legitimate target of scorn, revulsion or patronizing pity?

What is "having a wire crossed" if not a dysfunction or disorder? Is it shameful to have a disorder? 

I have a mentally ill son. Is that shameful? Should I be ashamed of him? 

Once again, an ENTIRE post without ONE relevant word or thought vis a vis WHY any of these differences ought to deny homosexual citizens equal access to society's institution of marriage.

Not. One.

There is not one reasonable, rational reason to interfere with same sex marriage.

It is exclusively a bigot problem. The ick factor.

And think how disgusting the person, must be to want to deny marriage rights while picture9ing that person having sex. And that is what those against SS marriage are doing. Or there would be no ick factor in the first place.

Nasty minded people. That should not ever have a say in other peoples personal lives.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The reason we, as humans, have a sex drive to begin with (plus, the complimentary equipment) is procreation. 

Poppycock. I am human. I have a sex drive. And there is do such "drive" in ME to procreate. The exact same thing can be said of my (very) heterosexual youngest sister, my equall heterosexual nephew, and myriad others. Your statement may very well be true - for YOU - but it is by no means universal.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Homosexuality, running directly counter to that, demonstrates a clear and blatant disconnect from underlying reason. 

Since your original 'premise' is flawed, you conclusion is equally flawed.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Once again, these are prefectly clear, reasonable concepts.

They are nothing more, less or other than suppositions by you.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There is no way around them

Only if you accept them as relevant, pertinent or even true to begin with. You seem to be the only one here who does.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I'm perfectly willing to tolerate gays making the choice to be legally married by the state. 

Gee, earlier, you wanted us to consider 'options 2 through 4'.

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Besides, it's not the sort of thing that ever should have been up for a popularity contest to begin with. 

And yet it has been - in 30 States. And you sure as Hades have spent enourmous resources to 'argue' to the contrary - here and elsewhere. It isn't "objective" after all.

May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Isn't the answer obvious?

No. It isn't. If it were, we wouldn't be debating.

May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

It would be like, for example, saying that trying to "eat" by shoving food up one's nose, or simply smearing it on the skin, is objectively equal to putting food in one's mouth, chewing and swallowing. 

Ah, now THERE'S a rational, cogent 'argument' against same-gender marriage if ever tehre were one.

Not.

May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context. 

No one here seem s to agree that this context" and "underlying reason" for sex (despite the fact that the topic is - now - marriage) even exists, let alone is "inferior" "objectively" or "subjectively". It seems it is only such in your mind. Evidently it is not universal.

May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The fact that you even had to ask that question speaks volumes about the essentially irrational contemporary approach to this issue. 

When YOU make a rational argument, you'll get some in response.