James,

Yes, you are right, all human rights issues are important. But some of those issues are like icing on the cake, some are like the 100s and 1000s sprinkled on the icing on the cake, and some are the cake.

And yes, you are also right that we should "take seriously the rights of those other than themselves". That was my point too :) To me, that is the difference between being 'radical' and being 'progressive':

* a radical will passionately champion the interests of his or her own group;

* a progressive will passionately champion the rights of people other than his or her own group.

I guess, for those of us who are neither homosexual nor Indigenous, and with finite resources, we have to make choices about who to go into bat for, choices perhaps based on some criteria of hardship, history, degree of oppression - basically, on the level of deprivation of rights. On balance, those with a legacy of fewer rights and more restrictions 'deserve' more support, given the limits on one's time and financial resources.

The right to full and equal lives, the right not to be burdened with the legacy of discrimination, not to be held back by the past, such as getting jailed for being in town after 5 pm or aspiring only to the meanest of jobs, the right to vote in one's own country, to associate with whomever one wishes and to get the schooling for one's children that other people take for granted - these differences in what restrictions Blacks and Whites have had imposed on them, sort of force the issue, James. History unfairly imposes legacies which are often very difficult to throw off.

Let people marry who they like, yada yada, and then let's get on with more important issues.

Joe

Let people marry who they like; Not a good idea. There's an argument going now about custody battles because people have had relations with who ever they like.

ALGORE: the harms you mention come not from gay marriage, but from additional issues. You're putting forward a slippery slope argument, one with no real foundation. In fact, you yourself provide the solution to it: with those things that cause harm, harm can be shown. Therefore, that provides a reason not to enact them. Enacting gay marriage itself causes no harm, even by your reasoning.

As for your religious viewpoint, I'll simply state that Christians are not uniform on this topic and there are many points of view, then leave it with 'I don't care what religion says. Keep religion out of politics and we'll keep politics out of religion.'

Loudmouth: 'Let people marry who they like and get on with more important issues' -- yes please. I'd like that. The fact that this issue WOULD be so easy to deal with, and in my opinion is not merely peripheral, because all civil rights eventually lean on each other. Yes, as individuals we must choose our battles. But as a society, no. If you as an individual have the energy to fight battle A but not battle B, so be it, you're only human. But the least you can do is not stand in the way of battle B. Don't give cover to those saying B is too much effort. As a society, if we start picking and choosing civil rights, then we have no true rights at all.

Society does not offer any legitimate and genuine rights.

Of the "rights" it does offer, they are either used against you or denied as society sees fit.

Take "due process". We all know that Martin Bryant was denied due process. But did you know that this is happening even in smaller cases?

Here is an example : http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com/trials.html

Yes, the Boaz slippery slope to hell. How many times have we heard that one.

>>Accept gay marriage and you MUST by reason and "civil rights" accept/legalize POLYGAMY because that is the 'religious freedom' for a Muslim.<<

As the article's author points out - rather well, I thought - the same arguments were trotted out, all those years ago, to perpetuate the "white people only marry white people" tradition.

It would be churlish, of course, to point out that your Bible specifically allows polygamy. And incest, naturally.

It would be even more churlish to point out that there are Christian churches around the world that are happy with polygamy. It even got a mention in the 1988 Lambeth conference, specifically allowing multiple wives to "be admitted in some cases to baptism". Although why the wives would want to, beats me.

It would be yet more churlish still, I suspect, to point out that the age of consent in Vatican City is 14. Until 1929, it was 12. And in biblical times...?

Ah yes, the obligatory, carefully chosen biblical quote...

>>Speaking from a religious perspective now... as far as God is concerned.. homosexual behavior is an abomination...<<

...followed by a verse from Paul's lecture to the Romans.

How did Paul's personal prejudices, pray tell us, suddenly get attributed to God? Because let's face it, Paul was basically a misogynist, if not a full-blown misanthrope. Hardly a credible witness for the prosecution.

Now, if you could find somewhere that one of the chroniclers actually attributed the same sentiments to Jesus...

Your biblical-based argumentation is verily built upon sand, Boaz.

And you know it.

<<Gay marriage: a democracy must not mean the majority deciding what is right for the minority.>>

But surely “the majority deciding what is right for the minority” is far preferable to the minority deciding what is right for the majority?
Especially when it inevitably leads to travesties such as children being taken away from their natural mothers and given to their former lesbian partners because the mother no longer supports the homosexual agenda.

It's not civil rights if it leads to uncivil wrongs.