Adi,
I appreciate your feelings, nor am I suggesting your arguments do not have merit, and are not worthy of discussion. All I am saying, and have been saying these many posts is that your argument is more of a second base argument - and you cant get to second base without first getting past first base.


First Base = Choice v. Non-Choice

Second Base (and beyond) = Prejudice, Hatemongering, Equal Status, Love, Acceptance, etc.


The major miscommunication we seem to be having (and maybe its me - maybe I have not explained it clearly enough), is that you are assuming that because the Supreme Court has stated that gays are a suspect class, that everyone accepts this. All I have been saying this entire time is that this is not the case - clear examples that State Supreme Courts, and "The Supreme Court's" decisions are not 100% accepted by american society are the machinations of various government offices (congress, executive / state legislatures, governors) to amend the US and State Constitutions, respectively.

You think I disagree with you on your Second Base arguments - I have been attempting to say this entire time that probably, for the most part, I do not. We disagree on First Base, and this is the sole reason of great frustration for people who agree on a general democratic ideological base, but disagree fundamentally on religion and the choice argument.

Do you understand? We are more alike than NOT alike (for the most part), but we differ in one seemingly minor, but very key way.

Now, as a side note, I do want to address a few statements you made:


I appreciate that. However, as you know, law is up to interpretation, and there are those that feel that the the Hate-Crimes Law was written broadly enough to encompass in some way punishment of pastors who merely teach as a course of belief that homosexuality is the "wrong" choice. In sum, punishment for thought, or free speech. I am merely sharing this, not because I am going to argue it here, but to explain why some may believe that the Supreme Court IS going to force religious organizations to submit to homosexuality in contravention of their beliefs.

You are gravely mistaken. I dont "try" to make legal arguments, and if I were making one, you wouldnt need to infer it. I seriously hope you understand that nothing about this discussion has been a "legal" exercise for me. This is a friendly conversation online about an interesting subject with people I respect, and any bullet points or bolded headings for me are nothing more than my attempt to keep myself precise as I navigate this very treacherous subject, and to make reading my drivel easier, because I know I'm longwinded.

That said: what I did was acknowledge that according to the US Supreme Court, gays are considered an insular minority, and therefore DO fall under a protected class. I merely suggested that some people do not agree with this ruling.

I proffered that explanation NOT to argue the law of the Supreme Court, but as an explanation to your bewilderment as to WHY americans are even entertaining amending the constitution to overturn gay marriage.

So. I really dont know how to explain it anymore, save like this:

Person A: I dont understand why Americans are against gay marriage.
Person B: They think its wrong.
Person A: But the Supreme Court already said it wasnt!
Person B: They dont agree with the Supreme Court.
Person A: I still dont understand. They're hatemongerers! See? The Supreme Court said so!
Person B: They dont feel they are hatemongerers - which is why they overturned the Supreme Court decision by amending the Constitution.
Person A: But I dont understand - its WRONG - they shouldnt be changing this law!
Person B: You have to convince THEM its wrong, so they wont change the law: thus fight the battle in the court of public opinion.

I hope that makes sense.

Semantics. Its not necessary to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing alone, because I DID correctly restate your view. I've already agreed it is widely accepted that it is NOT a choice, but that even people who accept this theory (for whatever reason), know that it is a theory. That was my singluar point in restating YOUR views about the theory itself and whether or not it was a theory or proven fact. Only that.

Now. This is your "for whatever reason" argument, and it does nothing more than explain WHY you accept the theory that homosexuality is NOT a choice. It is a very fair argument.

Now that's a good argument, because it exceeds the CHOICE issue, and drives home the point that maybe choice doesnt even matter. This argument is a horse I would ride all the way home.

__________________
something witty goes here......