Quote:
Discriminating against homosexuals by not giving them the same civil rights of partnership is mistreating another human being
This is a pretty complex issue here- I do see your point but I think that it is still not quite intolerence. I could say the same about abortion- I think there are tons of innocent unborn children who are being mistreated; however, I don't think that pro-choicers are intolerent. I think they are wrong in their assesment of what constitutes human life.

I think the issue of homosexual marriage comes back to a place where state and church are not quite as seperate as they should be. People of faith view marriage as being ordained and defined by God; other people do not. The state has long upheld this teaching of the church, which it ought not to have done. This didn't provide a practical problem for the most part until recently, but now the question is being raised as to why the state should support the churchs definition of marriage. I'll agree that it is unfair for the state to define marriage in a way that excludes the homosexual community, but It seems equally wrong to me that the state would deny the churchs definition as well. Unfortunatly, we can't have both. Personally I'd rather can the concept of legal marriage altogehter, but that simply isn't going to happen. So what we're left with is a question where someone is going to be told that they are wrong, by the state. There is no good answer for this question. Civil Unions are about the best compamise, but it seems to be a solution almost everyone finds unacceptable.

But going back to your statement, you say that for someone to say that marriage is between a man and a woman only means he or she is a bigot because of the consequences to a homosexual. So say we broaden the definition of marriage to be more inclusive- what about polyamarous relationships? I know some mormans who would like to be able to marry multiple wives. So now should we extend the definition of marriage to include their viewpoint as well? Or if we do not, are we then bigots?

Now personally, I'm in favor of civil unions- I don't know what your friend at the coffee shop would say. In fact, what I really think is that they should ALL be civil unions and let "marriage" fall out of the governments territory. However, as long as government is going to be deciding what is and is not a marriage, I guess I'm left with voting what I believe. I feel that is consistent with the spirit of this nation as well as my faith.

Quote:
I think human beings are marvelous creatures and it's humanity that deserves worship.
Ah, well this is definitly the big point of contention. Almost every point of view I have comes from the idea that we are all fallen sinners in need of grace. My observation of people in the world has bourn this out- we do not seem to be a glorious people to me, but rather greedy, hurtful, selfish, and violent.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.