Pastor Bob, I realize not everyone shares my conservative economic views. Free market capitalism is the best system yet devised for generating wealth for everyone. Democratic socialism has a poor track record, and communism is abysmal.

My heart breaks for those who have traditional moral values and support liberal economic policies. Each election they must choose between divided loyalties. Many of the minorities you refer to make this choice each election. Assuming minorities automatically vote liberal on all issues is simplistic. The Democratic party has marginalized pro-life Democrats and gone steadily left on economic issues.

The two great moral issues of our day are under attack: the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage. That was the main point of Professor Hollis’ opinion column (point 10). And the freedom of conscience is no longer respected.

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/freedom-of-conscience-the-foundational-freedom

Voting is simple for you and me. Your progressive economic and social views coincide and my traditional moral values and libertarian economic views make my choices easy. For pro-life Catholics who may favor universal health care it is not so simple.

Christians, Muslims, agnostics, and others who understand biology and value human life are now forced to pay for abortifacient drugs against their conscience. This is tyranny with a velvet glove, all for the “common good.”

How flat out Ignorant and offensive: if you disagree with Dale you are against free markets and for socialism and communism.

"So watch for more articles about my illness and the Bible translation in the midst of articles about politics, history and travel."

Some people object to my Bible translation too. I'm glad you liked it. To please everyone on the Patch, I have to be quiet. But that would be unfair to those who read and do not comment. Some have sought me out to thank me in person.

Dale: it wasn't so much your translation. I could care less about your translation of a translation of a translation. When you commented on other stuff that was outside the topic, and showed offensive ignorance that's where I had an issue. That was not in the text of your translation, that was in your comments.

Cookie:

Thank you for muddying the issue with actual facts. It is fatiging, isnt it? I'm sure Dale will ignore them, because he will find them inconvenient, no matter how true. I have lots of friends and family of many political and religious persuasions whom I love and whose opinions I respect on many issues. I feel Dales attitude is a great example of why all the tea publicans did so poorly in the last election. They seem to have no catharsis or self awareness. Every wrong or failure is somebody else's fault.

Thanks for the correction on Professor Hollis’ current job and for the alternate view – there are many opinions about the best way to do things in our country. In my opinion, a blogger on the left-wing Daily Kos has less credibility than a Notre Dame professor. Having room for all views is what makes America great.

My main point is the disdain shown by Democrats for those with opposing views. Joe Biden in the VP debate with Paul Ryan is a prime example.

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/joe-the-scoffer-vs-paul-the-planner

I was sick to my stomach when the Obamacare mandate took effect on August 1, the same day as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. Because there really are people who have moral objections to paying for the abortions of others, and mandatory insurance coverage for abortifacients is just that.

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/chicago-and-boston-mayors-attack-chick-fil-a

We’re not claiming we have all the answers, especially on economic issues, which are debatable. It’s not narcissistic at all to stand on Biblical principles (the Word of God) on moral issues like the sanctity of innocent human life. It’s narcissistic to ignore His principles and for ministers to teach against them is beyond the pale.

Forcing others to violate their conscience on sincere beliefs that harm no one “for the common good” is tyranny.

So amazingly typical of Dale. He dismisses the source of an article, so it can't possibly be valid: the very essence of an ad hominem attack. The reply cited is extremely detailed and factual, but never mind. Never mind the sources he cites that are basically known for telling right wing fundamentalists what they would like to hear. Facts aren't important if they interfere with Dales dogma. Of course everyone is either conservative (good follower of God and all things holy) or a liberal (anyone who doesn't believe what he does and therefore unGodly, evil, wrong, wrong, wrong).It is a juvenile and simplistic view of the world, but it seems to make him happy. Perhaps that all he can handle.

Most people in the world aren't on the extreme right wing (like Dale) or extreme left (who Dale illogically assumes is everyone who doesn't believe what he believes). The world is not black or white: it's grey and most people are rational and realize this.

Mom, did you see the life of Henry Ford on PBS, the salt of the earth, the working man;s hero. See how he ended? How he treated Edsel? Someone hit the nail on the head regarding the close relationship between money and evil. Its even mentioned in one of the ten commandments regarding coveting. Ford died blaming Jews, and feeling guilt for not recognizing his son's accomplishments and love for him knowing he contributed to Edsel's demise from stress ulcers turning to cancer.

Well said Mom

I agree with most of what you wrote, Ronald, although I would sometimes draw different conclusions. The facts you cited are all true (Hindu Kush, etc.). You should consider blogging yourself.

I oppose all religious bigotry the same as you; the Jews in particular have had a long history of great accomplishment (more Nobel prizes per capita than any other group) and people persecuting them, so I understand your perspective.
People are a mix of good and evil, even the best of us. I prefer to focus on the positive things people have done (while not ignoring the negatives), rather than dwell on the negatives.

It’s true that Henry Ford had anti-Semitic views, but his innovations also brought the $5/day wage and made cars affordable for millions of people, lifting their standard of living. Greenfield Village is southeast Michigan’s top-rated tourist attraction and celebrates entrepreneurship, inventions and innovation.

correct, re: " vacation", mean't to say "vacation homes".eg Time shares, Florida condos (snowbirds). Frequent flyers, VIP's, all the new "nobility" that we dote on in soap operas, and PBS. Where does all this Social Securtiy go, check those who sit for hours at the slot machines in Casinos.

No love lost for Matty Maroun either – he has used his monopoly to line his pockets, not serve his customers. Not all wealthy people are greedy, but some are. The Millionaire Next Door book testifies to that.

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/a-guide-to-ballot-proposals-4-5-6

Money is neutral. Having a lot or a little of it does not make you virtuous.

I also oppose the idea of retiring to amuse yourself, gambling, particularly lotteries, and won’t be joining AARP.

2. She doesn’t think the candidate would have mattered. I disagree and think if he hadn’t taken the hard right stance on social issues he might have had a much better chance. That tells me it’s not the “takers” aka seniors, veterans, and children in America that cost him the election, it was his policy stances.
3. She blames the government for undermining “the institutions that instill good character – marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches.” You mean like expanding marriage to interracial couples in 1967? Like teaching science and history in classrooms? Really? What has the government done to “undermine” these things? This is where conservative “personal responsibility” comes into play and conflicts with this claim. I thought it was up to parents to instill good values in their children, not the government? It is up to the individual to respect their marriage, family, community, and church, and instill their children with these values; not the schools or the government. I was raised in the Catholic church, going every Sunday, was taught to treat others as I would like to be treated, that marriage was a sacred thing not to be entered lightly, and that the greatest thing in life is love. I believe a bigger portion of America believes in my basic values, but also don’t think we need to go back to the 1950s to live them.

4. All Laura has done in the above points is deflect, insult, demean, and distort. There really is nothing concrete here and I see her as the adolescent here.
5. It really is astounding that she thinks the “war on women” is waged by Democrats. The DNC example she raised is a question of taste, not a denial of rights. As far as Catholics, when 89% of catholic women take birth control, I struggle to see the objection. Who has voted against the Violence Against Women Act? Republicans. Who wants to legislate what a women does with her body? Republicans. And then to call the 19th Amendment into question? Stunning. Who has supported equal pay for equal work? Democrats. Who defends a women’s right to make their own health decisions? Democrats.
6. If Republicans want to keep fighting social issues, they will become extinct. I believe more Americans may define themselves as “pro-life”, but that depends on how you define pro-life. I would also say that being “pro-choice” does not make you anti-life as social conservatives believe. I would describe myself as pro-life, because I do believe that a women should make every effort to keep the baby. However, I would not legislate that they be required to keep the baby.

If the pregnancy will harm the women’s life, or if it is the product of a rape, or may not have any support once born, then it is up to the individual to make their own medical decision. I’m not willing to pay to raise all of those children, so why should I have a say in whether or not they are born? The conservative view doesn’t seem to support the children after they are born and definitely conflicts with the “small government” ideology.
7. Obama won by about 5 million votes. Seems a little like a mandate….
8. The corrupt media? What is the most prevalent news station in the country? Fox News, and I think we all know where Fox News stands. As for the other media outlets, they seem to have a better fact check rate. No matter where you get your news, you should always do a little fact checking yourself. What’s dangerous is that people rely on the media to teach them, rather than taking the stories the media provides and following up on the facts/figures presented.
9. I think if we examine policies, particularly tax policies, we’ll see that Republicans are far more friendly to the biggest corporations that the Democrats (however, I don’t think they are all that clean either). One of the biggest examples would be continuing billion dollar tax breaks for oil companies. I think this flawed policy has a bigger effect on the economy than the Affordable Health Care Law.

10. We’re polarized because of vitriolic opinion pieces like Laura’s.
11. Rock bottom? Does she remember 2007-2008? Does she remember the stock market crashing and 401ks disappearing? Does she remember Hurricane Katrina? I think President Obama has been pretty strong on Foreign Policy, even according to the former Bush administration. This is just more vitriol with no basis in fact. It seems to me that the stock market has fully recovered, home prices are rising, companies are making record profits, we’ve ended 1 war and are winding down another after 10 years, and we’re moving forward as a country.
Dale, the recurring theme in her opinion piece, along with most of your posts, is the legislation of morality. For some reason you want the government to legislate personal responsibility instead of advocating for people to take responsibility for their own lives. Conservatives are losing America because they argue for smaller government that stays out of our lives, but then advocate for the legislation of their moral code. The youth of this country have access to multiple sources of information and are able to look at the facts. They can look at history and current events and see which movement advocates for big government that wants to restrict rights (marriage, voting, immigration, medical) and those who advocate for right size government that takes care of our national defense and infrastructure, while also allowing everyone to enjoy the same rights.

Dale- Maybe you need to go back and read what your wrote about in the original piece (those who voted for Obama are not adults and do not know restraint) and then your comment about that most people who voted for the President work hard. Which is it? What I get a strong sense of is that you think that anyone who voted for the President is a taker. Quite the contrary, we are big givers- in terms of time and money. At one time, during college, I was part of those 47% that Romney called deadbeats - I was working full time at a minimum wage job paying my way thru college, so when I did my tax returns I got money back. So even though I was going to school full time and working full time, people with your point of view consider that situation all that is wrong with American - how backwards and upside down this country has become. BTW, the Constitution is not being weakened, however there are plenty of people trying to deny certain groups their rights under it.

Far out – talk about left wing bias throughout the article. Dripping with sarcasm, generous use of agenda, so-called etc. and quotation marks to show disrespect. All in all a one-sided point of view with much innuendo and little data.

I’d not read anything from Mother Jones before. I missed them in my media bias piece. If you’re reading that regularly, it’s not surprising why you think the mainstream media is neutral.

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/media-bias-deliberate-and-unintentional

Why didn’t someone ask him what he meant by the statement? It might have been quite innocent. Stuff is blown out of proportion both ways. There’s plenty of real racism going the other way from the Left, too, just ignored by most media folks and denied by your side.

What’s wrong with giving parents and students a choice? Why does the MEA block charter schools? This biased article admits why: because charter schools hire non-union teachers. Let’s free the hostages in our dangerous, failing urban schools, not block the exits.

Your point is well taken, though. Conservatives need to be more careful about their messaging, because the Left ruthlessly twists careless statements into pretzels. Both sides do it, but the Left has most of the news media on their side which gives them a pass when they do it routinely.

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/a-guide-to-the-newspapers

"By the way, I'm a Independent" - Lianne Mathie .............kneeslapper of the day!!

Lianne, I'm a true Independent. I've keep my mouth shut reading the vitriolic rhetoric on here coming from both the right and the left. Frankly, that is why I'm an Independent because of the bitter partisan divide that prevents this country from moving forward.

I've read your comments, and they tend to be just as nasty and partisan as Dale's.

Please, please, put a cork in it! (both of you)

Hey John,
I can have a very real difference of opinion with what Dale says, but I do it with my full name.I will will challenge bigoted opinions and I will use my real name. So, indeed, put a cork in it Mr. Smoothy.

John David,
Thanks for the links. This one from Susan B Anthony especially seemed timely:

"If all the rich and all of the church people should send their children to the public schools they would feel bound to concentrate their money on improving these schools until they met the highest ideals."

Yes, we're moving into the 21st century and want to use technology to explore new ways of learning (e.g., online classrooms), give more choice in schools and reduce costs at the same time. But we tread this road at our own peril, public schools have had a huge role in building the middle class and given new immigrants the tools to succeed in our society. Why divert our tax dollars to building up charter schools and developing a voucher system, when we should be maintaining and improving our public schools?

Kristen,

We do have the right to our own opinion. I don't really understand why you make this comment in two blogs. Did someone violate the terms of use for Patch? I hope your intent was to try to be fair and evenhanded. Or do you not support comments on blogs, or just Dale's blogs? In response to a December blog in Patch, this is what Dale wrote to the blogger: "Only an unbelieving religion professor would have the audacity to call his book “The American Bible.” A better title would be “The American bible” if such a word is used at all. I’m surprised that a Christian pastor would promote such a blasphemous idea". What Dale's comment says is that the blogger, a minister, was promoting blasphemy, and that the author of the book the blog was written about had committed blasphemy. Pretty strong stuff from Dale. His comments hijacked the conversation of that blog, including efforts to demonstrate to him that his personal offense to the use of the word bible was misplaced and mistaken. Two days after his original comment, Dale posted this "Maybe I was too quick to judge Professor Prothero, since I’ve not read any of his writings". Only after he hijacked the blog, and was corrected did he admit to not reading the book reviewed by the blogger and his other errors. If anyone using the Troy Patch is using comments on blogs incorrectly, especially hijacking others' blogs for his own unrelated opinions, it is frequently done by Dale.

Context, John David. You ripped parts of what I wrote completely out of context and put it in the worst possible light. You left out the gracious things I wrote and also the deafening silence from John and Pastor Bob Cornwall, who were breezily discussing my views until I responded.

I didn’t “admit to any other errors,” except assuming that Professor Prothero was unbelieving (it’s probably a good guess, though), just explained what I meant. Others who want the whole story can read it here:

http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/the-american-bible-a-review

John wouldn’t give his last name when I asked him directly, and neither do you. I think he’s John Kulesz, whom I sat next to at a council meeting and had a good conversation with. A nice guy who has different views than me.

Kristen is just trying to moderate the on-line discussion and keep it civil. She suggested that everyone could write their own blog articles (you’d have to use your full names). We’ll see how many people read them. In the meantime you can continue to disagree with my political and religious opinions and quote me out of context.

But please don’t insult my King or His Word. It’s not just a collection of important religious writings, despite what you and others may think. The Bible is the instruction manual from the Creator of the universe, and we ignore it at our peril. We cannot pick and choose what we accept – that puts us on the throne, not God.

It is very difficult to keep things civil when you keep posting/blogging inflammatory things. You have long abandoned civility. Nobody should be surprised when people respond in kind. You are extremely disrespectful of people who believe differently than you. This very blog post is an excellent example.

Nobody is responsible to you or owes you their name or anything else. Your silence is deafening throughout your blogs and comments. Why should anyone feel obligated to respond to you? You are frequently exposed as out of line and inaccurate, yet you ignore those comments and keep referring back to articles.

Dale,
Context: http://troy.patch.com/blog_posts/the-american-bible-a-review Pastor Cornwall blogs a book review, you are the first to comment with exactly what I cited - the blasphemy accusations. 5 days later you admit you did not know who the book's author was that you said was blasphemous. I erred in saying you admitted other errors. I thought after you were informed that the word bible is frequently used in book titles for many subject, and properly capitalized, that you realized your error. I can't find you did admit not knowing the proper use of capitalization in book titles or the frequent use of the word bible for guidebooks. But now you say you assume Prothero is unbelieving.

My point is that you attacked a blogger for printing a book title using a common form - Bible - as an attack on Christ, when it was no such thing and called the blogger a promoter of blasphemy. You have hijacked other blogs before, taking unrelated subjects and turning the discussion to your political and religious views.

As I have shown here, you have been a major proponent of incivility on the Patch. You cannot say you have not when you have made religious accusations against anyone, much less a blogger who simply posted a book review of a book with Bible in the title, and when you hijack other blogs for your purposes. When is comes to moderating for civility, Kristen should look at what you have written first.

In general I don't really respond to Dale's national political or religious opinions. He is entitled to his opinions. In general, I respond to (often) wrong information and the abundant attacks that Dale makes on people who believe differently than him. Very frequently my views don't correspond with the groups he attacks, I just don't like the attacks. An opinion should be able to stand on it's own without have to attack another opinion (especially attacks which are usually illogical or otherwise unreasonable).

The discussion above is a case in point. Dale thinks someone believes differently than him. Therefore, that person is probably an "unbeliever". It is irrational and insulting (who is he to say?), but I'm sure he will just say he is presenting another opinon to make a soup or some such, as if that makes the insult ok.

I think it is possible that many people who respond to Dale have very little in common religiously or politically other than not appreciating his attacks and false information.

I've tried to ignore Dale's blogs and comments, but some comments are outrageous, categorical, offensive to individuals or groups, or based on biased information and not on facts. I actually share much of his political and religious beliefs, and those I don't share, I do understand. Maybe no one should care what he says. Anyone has a right to blog and comment, but not to accuse, attack, name call, or hijack other blogs. He's hijacked one recently, turning the discussion to abortion and his views, and when challenged that it was off topic, indicated it was his right and imperative duty to do so even if it was completely off topic (I'm characterizing his response, not quoting, just so he knows). I'm going to try again to ignore him.

FWIW: the Patch likes the heated debate coming from posts and then clamps down on it when they've had enough. It's just business. The same thing happened with school bond/board issues in Bloomfield Hills. I understand it but they don't have "clean hands." I have no comment on the substance of the thread.

Dale,

Um, you invoked my name and said I'm failing to respond.

For the record, yes I'm the John K. of the recall effort. And I'm not quite sure what conversation you're referring to. I tend to not allow the Patch to send me email updates for articles I've commented on. And if I've lost track of something, it's because I've not been paying attention to the Patch.

Good idea; maybe I’ll write for a conservative blog AND still submit articles to the Patch. Two birds with one stone!

If this happens, I’ll let Patch readers know where they can read other conservative ideas besides mine.

Your disagreements, comments, and blogs are certainly not polite. Anyone who posted what is at the top of this page can make no claim to politeness. And that is just an example that is close at hand.

Yes, I know some gay people. Most are kind, loving, creative people, just like most heterosexuals. I just do not think it is good public policy for the government to grant them marriage licenses. They should not be reviled or otherwise persecuted, nor given special privileges. I don't think I said gay people were not normal; I don't believe that. We all have temptations and fall short in one way or another.

I think I said gay sexual behavior is not normal. Two men cannot make a baby; neither can two women. By definition, gay sex is unnatural and therefore not what God has designed - one man and one woman for marriage.

God also did not design it for a man and woman to divorce except for marital unfaithfulness or abandonment. Just because no one can meet all of God's standards does not mean we should relax them or ignore them. That's the whole point of the cross - Jesus died to redeem us from our sin.

If some consider that bigoted, so be it. It is what the Bible teaches, and as a Christian I am compelled to follow it. But please don't take what I have said and stretch it any further.

If you are talking about how you choose to live your life, that's your business.

If you are talking about anyone else, you are completely bigoted. Your interpretation of what you think the bible says does not entitle you to belittle other people.

Dale, I would love to hear your legal argument against gay marriage, because citing the Bible does not work in court. You say that you don't "think it is good public policy for the government to grant them marriage licenses" and go on to imply that procreation is a requirement for marriage. Funny, I don't think people are required to have children in order to get married. In fact, I don't think believing in God is a requirement for marriage under the law. Athiests can get married by the state and receive a marriage license. What is so difficult to understand about the difference between civil and religious marriage? Civil marriage is a legal contract with the state between two individuals who publicly declare they wish to spend the rest of their lives together. Religious marriage is a sacred rite performed by one's religious denomination. Gay couples are fighting for the first (not "special privileges"), while social conservatives (mostly) fight "to protect" the second. Again, this is you wanting to legislate your personal beliefs based on religion. If you really want to protect marriage, then you should focus on making divorce & adultery illegal. While I disapprove of both, I also disagree with criminalizing them under the law.

I am a gay man. I want you to explain to me how my getting married destroys or damages "the institution of marriage". I mean specifically in Troy, MI, how would my marriage affect anyone else in Troy? (And please don't cite the Bible)

Dale, God's word is for God's people. The United States of America is not a theocracy so scripture can't be made law "just because."

If because of your religious background you believe gay people ought not to marry, then you shouldn't marry another man, nor bless the marriage of your sons to other men or daughters to other daughters. That's your prerogative and obligation to piety.

To prohibit others from same-sex marriages you will need a better argument describing a compelling government interest in rejecting them. I see no such argument. But I can't articulate a compelling argument why government cares about marriage generally, gay or not. What the government is interested in, and cultures throughout history, is children. Nations, tribes, and clans would disappear and be for naught if they didn't have children to renew and immortalize them. And for that compelling interest, the government has had a historical, but now misplaced interest in marriage.

So while you or Ms. Hollis may think we've crossed a line, I think we may be able to renew ourselves for the better through a better understanding of what our nation's interest really are, and in doing so find we've better laws in God's eyes than before when we were blind.

I'm not an expert in this area, and clearly I don't spend as much time as Dale thinking about the topic, so check me if I'm wrong here: I am not aware of an act of lovemaking that gay people can engage in that straight people aren't capable of engaging in as well. Is he saying no sex should occur except for reproduction? No people should be allowed to marry unless children can be produced? Because I am dead set against both ideas. The bit about only divorces he thinks are ok should be allowed is super too. Apparently he doesn't think savage abuse is grounds for divorce. There's a key to his thinking and what we're dealing with here.

I little while ago, he said (correctly) what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business. Here we are with his making it his business, again. Are you retracting your earlier statement Dale? Was it never true?

Also, gay people have kids naturally and by adopting for all sorts of reasons. Bigotry like Dale's promotes discriminating against these families at law. I think these families should be treated fairly and not discriminated against, even if Dale thinks they are are icky, or he thinks the Bible tells him they are icky. The Bible should have no sway in this country in matters of civil law.

I would bet knows many more gay people than he thinks he does. I imagine gay people would be comfortable being out to someone so intolerant and bigoted.

Daffy,

I was thinking about gay marriage during church today. I think people concentrate on sexual "orientation" and sex acts. Like you said, there is no sex act a gay can engage in that a straight person can't, and I am sure, have engaged in. What I think people ought to focus on is the humanity of everyone. If a person is attracted to and loves someone of the same gender, why should they be excluded from marriage, if that is what they want? Marriage is a legal, civil union, primarily, in the US. States set rules like when you can apply for a license, how long a license is good for until you get married, but does not require a religious wedding. Religious organizations can marry couples within the law and subject to their own requirements. Judges and others can marry couples within state law. I see no reason why under our law that same sex couples should be prohibited from marrying. There are benefits to them that would apply that they cannot obtain other than thru marriage, such as the right to be present when they are hospitalized, property rights, and other rights heterosexual couples are given by law. Religion should not prevent this. It took a Supreme Court ruling to allow whites to marry non-whites. Miscegenation was illegal in many states until the ruling in Loving v Virginia, a state decision based on biblical "separation of the races". I don't think it's a stretch that such a ruling will eventually apply to gays.

John David: My opinion on the issue is very much the same as what you stated. This being tax season, it is incredibly easy to see how gay families are discriminated against. On the issue of humanity, I think things like kids being brought up in same sex families having to feel as though society thinks less of their family is just plain an awful injustice.

It is also important to note that nowhere in any of the increasing numbers of places where it is legal for gay people to get married, no church has ever been compelled to marry anyone they didn't want to. It would be beyond the pale for that to ever become law. I understand and respect religious objections. Religious objections just aren't a basis for civil law for the entirety of society.

I even respect the right of people to have the opinion that <insert here> people are icky for Biblical or any other reason. I think it's awful, horrid, and repellent, and if anyone says so around me I will say so. A community website represents the community. I don't want anyone to think Dale's bigotry, or our awful former mayor is representative of Troy. I have a substantial investment here, and I am raising my beautiful little Noodnicks here.

It is also interesting to note that gay people are getting married all over this country at this time. I love Mrs. Noodnicks more every day I am fortunate enough to married to such a wonderful person, and the sanctity of our marriage has not suffered in the tiniest bit.

Ya gotta love them little Noodnicks! All of them.

If you mean proportional appointment of Presidential Electors like Nebraska and Maine by Congressional Districts, along with an end to gerrymandering like Iowa's Congressional District's law, I’m all for it.

So you suggest hurling ad hominems to counter his opinion? With as wide a divide as exists between left and right, you believe insults will build the bridge we need to find moderation? How can your advice be any more constructive and irrational as his?

I was thinking about human rights in relation to Christ's life and teachings. I wasn't distracted.

How pedantic and obnoxious of you Dale.

Dale, your "natural law" agrument still does not hold water in a court of law. I didn't ask you to cite civil cases for polygamy, I asked you for a legal case against same-sex marriage.

I do respect your First Amendment rights, Dale, because I am not asking for laws to be passed against your free speech or your religion. You are free to say whatever you please or practice whatever religion you want without the government punishing you for it. (Note that the First Amendment does not entitle you to say whatever you want without challenge from other citizens, only that the government cannot punish you for it.) I in no way claim to be perfect, so how long until you feel uncomfortable?

You are materially harming me by advocating to deny me the same rights as any other couple under the law. You also seem to be the one fixated on the physical aspect of gay relationships, because you keep coming back to "gay sex is unnatural". As others have correctly pointed out, there is no act that a gay couple peforms that a straight couple can't.

Gay advocates are not "redefining marriage". Marriage has morphed many times over the centuries. In this country alone, it was illegal for interracial couples to marry until 1967. Every argument you make here, is the same as the white preachers in the South at that time.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

As far as childless marriages, you seem to miss the point. There are many reasons that couples can't have kids, but my point is that those reasons do not disqualify them from getting married, so procreation is not a prerequisite. And for your information, there are hundreds of thousands of children waiting to be adopted in this country; there is no shortage:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/waiting2011.pdf

America's value system is one that is constantly evolving to be more inclusive and less discriminatory. I have no doubt that in 30 years no one will care about the issue of gay marriage or anyone being gay, except maybe religious zealots who want to push their beliefs on everyone else.

But Dale, you are clearly a bigot.

Dale, again, I nor any "gay rights advocates" are looking for your input on sexual behavior. I don't need to know what you do in privacy and you don't need to know what I do. You can also teach your kids whatever you want, you would be the parent, but for those kids who are gay you are being very destructive, whether you want to believe that or not.

You wouldn't be a bigot if you weren't rigidly devoted to your own religious beliefs and intolerant of those of us different from you. "Tolerance means live and let live", yet you are not tolerant because you are trying to make it illegal for me to marry the person I love. You may not approve of it, but you don't have the right to make it illegal, which is why you are labeled as such. No one is asking you to marry someone of the same sex, or your church to perform the ceremony, or you to even approve, the whole point is that it is none of your business. The only reason you oppose it is because of your religious beliefs, and that's fine, but again you can't impose those beliefs or legally punish those who don't share them. I don't believe that I spew venom at you, Dale, I merely disagree with you and offer the reasons/data why. I don't care what you do in your life, or with who, or how you do it, but you seem to want to tell me (via the law) what I can do.

You are correct that two-parent families better provide for (statistically) children than single parents, but that doesn't mean biological father and mother.

But Dale, you are clearly a bigot. Calling someone else unnatural is hate speech. You are disgusting.

As long as you exercise your first amendment rights to spread your antigay bigotry and lies, I will be here exercising my first amendment right to say how horrible you are being.

Dale, your interpretation of the Bible is no less flawed or incomplete than those preachers of the 1960s. I hope that you are not claiming to have an absolute understanding of the Bible, because I'm not sure that is possible considering the revisions and translations over the past 2000 years. Even so, there are many Christians who disagree with your interpretation, Matthew Vines being a very vocal one. Not that the interpretations really matter, because using the Bible is not a valid argument for denying gay marriage.

When you say you were also referring to straight people that is also untrue. You have referred to gay sexual behavior specifically multiple times.