No, you have had no personal experience?

Note to Barners. This thread references cornholing so no need for your usual references.

That I do not believe that sexuality is a choice.

Compassionate does not mean not 'cruel or unusual.'

'Invalid lifestyle?' You're speaking about them like they're illegal aliens. Just because you don't agree with it or understand it, doesn't make it 'invalid', bro. A lot of people feel that way about Christianity. Does that make your lifestyle invalid? Nope.

But I am asking /have asked you to be specific, and not dogmatic. So far, you've only been able to defend your stance on governmental policy through traditional religious edicts, not legal substantiation or entitlement. And that is exactly why I disagree with it.

Like Dave Mustaine said, 'The world don't wanna be saved, only left alone.'

In American history, I learned that when the Catholics immigrated to the United States - most of the country hated them & were VERY unnaccepting of them. Catholics were viewed as poor, strange, & unable to think for themselves because they rely on a Pope & the church etc..

I find it interesting that now, the Catholics are so unaccepting of other people with different beliefs.

Should someone not be able to base their beliefs on their religious faith?

They were hated because they were Catholics...by Protestants. In order to gain an understanding of this, one should study EUROPEAN history.

Very true, but is it not still a similar situation with a group of people being un-understanding because of different beliefs?

Well, there was more than just a difference in ideology. Both sides had alternately persecuted the other (far beyond the gay stuff in this discussion.)

Conceptually, I see your point. I just think it grossly oversimplifies, as that analogy doesn't take into account the more extreme wrongs done on each sides, beyond just having differing opinions.

And as a sidebar, while 157 (I think) is staunchly Catholic, his arguments echo the sentiments of Protestants who stick to the Bible as well.

He can believe whatever he wants. But the government should not derive laws based on a subjective set of beliefs. And I don't think that people should expect the government to do so, regardless of how strongly they may be tied to them. This is not a theocracy.

Hey, Catholics are supposed to oppose premarital sex. Why don't they lobby for it to be outlawed as well? Same goes with contraception.

It's a representative government. Of COURSE he wants government to reflect his beliefs. One man, one vote. Simple as that.

Random string of thoughts... ready, set, go!

Whether he wants the government to reflect his beliefs or not, that doesn't mean they should. I've got to agree with Contained on this one.

Much of the constitution is designed to protect minorities - that may not include gays at the moment, but I don't see why it shouldn't. They are just as legitimate a minority as any race, etc.

Even though people vote to elect officials, it's still the role of the government to protect people from themselves. Hate/contempt isn't something the national government should support.

Atleast part of America's success is due to their tolerence & I don't see why gay's shouldn't be included in that.