[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Solely from a political perspective, I think it was nothing but an election-year grandstanding attempt to help a reeling Republican party galvanize its Christian conservative base.

I disagree with you in one respect. The Republican Party may have it as an agenda item and they may not have. Unless you're part of their inner councils, you don't know any more than I, but you're excluding the possibility that the Church leadership saw it as an opportunity for something symbolic and good, in spite of the motivations of others.

And just imagine if Reid had bucked the trend, would the odds of it passing have increased? Of course, so in my mind, you're much too dismissive of what Church leadership thinks.

I'm as cynical as the next guy, and although leadership makes mistakes, I generally believe they do so with pure intent. Sometimes, they don't have accurate information, or skills, but they have a pure intent. Or sometimes their biases may blind them.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Knowing that, it's a little embarrassing to me to see the church get caught up in something that even the proponents didn't really think would pass. It's like the church joined in the Republican tactics. However, before you condemn me to hell, I really don't have a problem with the church pointing out the issue to the members.

You don't "know" what it's purpose was, you suspect it.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

What I got from hoya's arguments is that maybe homosexual marriage isn't going to be such a destroyer of the family, and that maybe the issue's being blown out of proportion by the proponents of the amendment. Again, I'm not saying whether this position is right or not, but I certainly don't see a problem with debating it.

This next point doesn't bother me.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think people are overlooking an important point here - the fact that the effort was made to draft the amendment suggests that the divinely-inspired constitution doesn't prohibit the states from allowing homosexual marriage. Try to wrap your brains around that one.

It all depends on how you view the "inspiration" of the Founding Fathers. They were very bright, unlikely since the dawn of time, motivated for the good of their fellow men. Just because they were "inspired" to put their best efforts forward and given inspiration as to certain aspects, doesn't mean it was perfect. Or, alternatively, the inspiration was sufficient that if the judges correctly interpreted the document, there would be no need for change. Alternatively, no inspiration is set for time and all eternity. All circumstances are bound to change.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I think the discussion is a valid one. I have read through the thread a few times, and I think hoya is being unfairly excoriated. I don't see the arrogance he's being accused of, but I do see it coming from the other side of the table.

My belief is the evidence that he sneers at any who disagree. He assumes his arguments are the only ones, and rather than deal with disagreeable, he ends, "hilarious, you make me laugh", even though he is but a young lad with no diversity of experience and the collective experience of people older is of no moment. That is an example of arrogance.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I'm ambivalent on the subject - I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, so I think I'm not caught up in the emotion of the argument. At the risk of focusing the anti-hoya ire on me, I think the personal attacks against him are getting out of hand, and they seem to me to be out of step with what he's posting. For whatever my opinion is worth.

And I believe you are sincere, so your sincerity is appreciated.