Hey, Mickey...A few thoughts and a confession:

I've never thought it right or possible politically to make the case against gay marriage from a Biblical perspective. If that argument (against marriage between same sex individuals) is to be successful, it would have to come from simply a historical perspective, not one of religious beliefs.

Second, I think many misunderstand the role "judging others" plays in the Bible. From my understanding and in line with my beliefs, I can't judge your heart, only your words and actions. I can't judge your eternal destination only to repeat and try to explain what the scriptures say to me (mainly from a Christian perspective that one must believe Jesus' death and resurrection makes a relationship with God possible).

Scripture does allow believers (and anyone I would guess) to compare one's behaviors to what the Bible says is right and wrong. For instance, the Bible says not to lie, if you lie, you are wrong. Of course then you get into deeper scenarios like, what if I lied to save a life. "No, Mr. Murderer, I do not know where she is hiding." Then like many absolutes, it becomes more difficult.

That said, here's the confession. I am slowly coming to believe that it is a civil rights violation to not allow two adults to marry. I'm not there yet completely, but I am certainly more sympathetic to the view and, as I have always been, deeply moved by those whom this view hurts.

It would not surprise me to see comments that follow this confession to the affect of "What! You don't see how this violates a person's dignity and rights!??"" instead of, "Congratulations, I hope your journey in that direction continues."

I would say to all those who have been critical of me personally and my motives for being here, I'm a big boy, I can take it. But, there are many whose views need to be changed before many things you would like to see happen in this country are possible. I'm not merely talking politically or by rule of law, but big picture, who we are as a nation.

I won't bore you with more, just to say again, thanks to all who have allowed me the privilege of dialog with those whom I do not always agree.

Actually I owe an apology to you. I do not mean to homogenize all Christians when I make statements as the one I did above (although admittedly that was the net effect in this instance). There is a great deal of difference between someone, such as yourself, who is embarking on belief as a life long process of finding spiritual enlightenment. I have no qualms with someone who walks the Christian path who is truly doing so to get to God. I do, however, have a big issue with someone whom I perceive as merely claiming to be Christian as a way of gaining political prowess or money (or both). I don't know Huckabee so I can't say for certain that this is what he is doing. He may truly believe what he is doing is "God's work." But, for me, I see him as a politician and I am always skeptical of the motives of political figures. Even if he has no intention of running for president- his actions at this conference stand to benefit him and those whom he supports and whom his PAC supports. So in any way you slice it- he stands to benefit from his rhetoric. Whether he believes it or not doesn't affect that the outcome will tip in his favor, so it is my natural inclination to believe he is a phony. And that is what I meant by saying his speech was being labeled as "pro-Christian." I meant that's how he and others like him have manipulated the conversation. I did not mean that those who are truly trying to find their way necessarily agree with him (or that they have to). My belief is that God is, metaphorically, a light. And religion is a mirror that reflects that light. You follow the light being reflected in your mirror till you can reach the actual source of that light (I.E. God). It's a lifelong process and few will ever actually achieve the ultimate goal of reaching the source. People like Huckabee seem to me to be people who've became obsessed that the mirror is the light, or it seems to me he's abusing those who have. And that's where my distaste comes from.

With that said I would strongly urge people to consider that spirituality is an individual path and it is clear you are attempting to figure yourself out in this world (which I think is what we are all doing). I wouldn't understand or behoove someone to make fun of you or attack you for attempting to follow that path. The only way someone ever gets from point a to point b is through trial and tribulation. The fact that you'd admit that it is something you've thought about and meditated on, the fact that you admit that you can at least consider marriage rights from a different perspective, shows that you're attempting to understand. And that's more of a victory than anything anyone could ask for in civil rights. There is no way to actually gain equality without changing hearts and minds. One cannot come before the other.

RobDon - I'm glad you're here and open to hearing and learning about new perspectives. I like that you don't come off as being preachy or proselytizing, and seem to want to share your opinions and thoughts without being wedded to the outcome of getting people to see the world just as you do. Thank you for your presence and your questions.

Mickey you are so right-on in your comments. I really enjoy reading what you have to say, too. This exchange between you and Rob has totally made my day and given me the push to keep on keepin' on during a week where I've been feeling pretty weighed down with insensitive and careless reamrks coming from folks i thought of as allies. thanks for the reminder to take a breath before i snark back...or at least to amend my snark after i've let it fly.

y'all rock.

If I may - I find it offensive when individuals hide behind their Christian faith as a way to justify their bigotry. I believe that is what Huckabee is doing here.

As a former preacher, Huckabee ought to be familiar with Matthew 12:33-37, especially the part saying "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure." And Matthew 7:15-20, which begins "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." As a self-righteous Pharisee, Huckabee would never think to apply these things to himself. But he ought to.

A man who says hateful, intolerant things is a hateful, intolerant man. And a man who preaches hate instead of love is a 'ravenous wolf'. Behold Mike Huckabee, the false prophet!

That is BS and you know it!! I don't hear him saying "kill the gays"! Those are the beliefs of many muslims (you know, the ones you were defending with the Mosque at Ground Zero!)

I'm sure the guy believes that marriage is appropriate only between man and woman (a view of the natural order of things male/female). The natural way to procreate, the design of our bodies. Being against homosexual marriage does not mean you hate homosexuals! It means you believe it goes against the natural order and is hurtful to families and gods plan.

A man who says hateful, intolerant things is a hateful, intolerant man. And a man who preaches hate instead of love is a 'ravenous wolf'. Behold Mike Huckabee, the false prophet!

Are your words and accusations not as hateful as you say his are? Where is YOUR tolerance for his religious beliefs?

We can disagree with homeosexuality and incorporating it into public policy in the form of equating it to marriage between a man and a woman, without hating the homeosexual. Not everyone who disagrees with your views is hateful, or evil, or spooky.

Where is YOUR tolerance for his religious beliefs?

Huckabee can believe whatever he likes so long as his beliefs do not affect my rights to live my life openly, work at the profession of my choosing and marry whom I please.

Ah yes. I don't hate black people, I just don't want them to be able to live next door to me. This, again, goes to the point of my sarcasm earlier. Segregation v. Race= intolerance; Segregation v. teh Gay= totally acceptable and not prejudice at all. Beyond that, you cannot make a "natural order" argument with the human species. LOOK AROUND YOU KATY! There are only two arguments you can make when talking about "nature" and humans. You can make the argument that humans are subjected to the same standards and practices as other species, or you can make the argument that since man has never been, nor ever will be, subject to those standards and practices "natural" for man means something else. If you take the first argument then you are a hypocrite unless you throw out every bit of advancement man kind has ever made. And I'm including here domestication of animals, the invention of the wheel, and of course fire. Because the only way you can take the view point of stance a is if you can be consistent- and that means no more medicine for you, no more money, no more technology. Bye bye! OR you take stance B. Which is that man creates his own rules for what is "natural" for him. And that position then explains why we have everything that we have- your car, your TV, the fact that you live in a building, your clothing, medicine, fire, clean water, etc, etc. And if it's stance B then there is no logical argument as to why someone doesn't want two people of the same sex to get married, being that mankind also makes for himself the order by which he reproduces. You cannot make a logical argument as to why same sex marriage is bad based on the argument of "because it's natural." If you do you are either blatantly hypocritical, or willfully ignorant.

RobDon, in regards to your comment #2.1, Congratulations, I hope your journey continues onward with great success! Just had to say it. You, at least, are bothering to take the journey. Thank you! :)

jender13, keep the fight going. Sometimes one just must close your ears and eyes to what happens, take a deep breath, and-------jump back in. I know what you mean about folk who are supposed to be allies not quite being there in the long run.

I still find it hard to see why everyone is so harsh on individuals who really are trying to live their faith. Yes, I get the idea that if what I "push" interferes with your rights, but to call them hateful?

I do not know Mr. Huckabee, but I have had known several Southern Baptist pastors who feel genuine heartache for ANYONE who is hurting. They aren't hateful individuals.

If they believe people should get married before living together, does that mean they hate single people who co-habitat?

I read a quote the other day that explained there is a difference between acceptance and approval. My God accepts me as I am but he does not approve of everything I do. Can individuals do the same? Disapprove of what you do but accept you for who you are?

If I voted for legislation providing for gay marriage but still viewed that lifestyle as not being in line with my understanding of God's design, does that still make me hateful? Or just wrong?

These concerns are not a tease or an attempt to provoke, it is a sincere puzzlement. Can I disagree with what you do but still love and accept you for who you are?

Where is YOUR tolerance for his religious beliefs?

I will not tolerate intolerance. If his "religious beliefs" are such that he embraces intolerant views, there is no reason whatsoever why I should not speak out against that. He is entitled to believe what he wants and say what he wants, but his First Amendment rights do not include freedom from either criticism or censure.

You've really got a major attitude problem. Get. Help. Now.

That is the pot calling the kettle black! IMO you have the attitude problem!!

Meddling Monk (Mickey, Jender, or anyone else), when you get a moment and have some to say in regards to my 2.10 post, I really am interested in trying to understand the dynamics involved. Any help appreciated. Thanks!

Everyone have a great Thanksgiving!

Hi RobDon,

Since you asked, here's a thought on your thoughts in 2.10. I have no problem with the fact that people have different belief systems or faiths. I respect that you are a person of faith - I am too, and I recognize that though our faiths are different (I am a Unitarian Universalist), they both serve as guides of a sort, as to how we live our lives and how we treat and interact with others.

Some of the principles of my faith are: the inherent worth and dignity of every person, justice, equality and compassion in human relations and acceptance of one another. I get what you're saying about the difference between approval and acceptance. For instance, I may not approve of someone in my family voting for John McCain in the last election, but I still accept them as part of my family.

I guess where I have an issue, and I'm not sure if this is getting to your question or not, is when people let their individual faith and their belief system begin to dictate what other people can and cannot do. So in your example:

If I voted for legislation providing for gay marriage but still viewed that lifestyle as not being in line with my understanding of God's design, does that still make me hateful? Or just wrong?

If you personally voted to allow same-sex marriage even though you personally do not approve of same-sex relationships, I'd actually say you are pretty cool - because you understand that what you personally believe shouldn't limit the rights of other people. Does that make sense?

I don't think someone truly trying to live their faith on a day to day basis is hateful. Even if they do not "approve" of my relationship. However, when someone thinks that because of what their church preaches they then have the right to make it illegal for me to marry my partner, to tell us that our love and feelings for each other are wrong and destroying the sanctity or marriage - that's hateful. That's forcing how you see the world on to a group of people who are not hurting anyone and, essentially, saying that they do not have the same inherent worth and dignity as you.

You can live your faith, and hold your beliefs, but as soon as you try to impose those beliefs on others through legislation, or discrimination, or hurtful language...then it becomes hateful.

I don't know if that answers any of your questions at all, but it's what popped into my head.

RobDon, what jender13 said so extremely well.

Maybe he is not saying anything other than what we all know but somehow fail to address. Apparently not everyone understands that the break down of the family is at the root of many social problems today, such as that in the black community where children are often raised without fathers. But, the problem exists in all communities where we so easily mate, have children, and then leave because WE are unhappy, at the expense of our children who then grow up without an understanding of commitment, personal responsibility, integrity, and sacrifice.

I love the term innovation. They use it alot at work these days. Mostly by a bunch of younger employees that just don't understand that not every thought they have is new, just because it isn't currently being done. There is such a thing as "lessons learned", and just because you haven't lived it doesn't mean something wasn't tried and discarded or for that matter is an improvement.

IMO, much social experimenting has already been done with the American family and it hasn't necesarily made things better! In fact, we seem to be so busy chasing our tails that we don't enjoy the simple things much anymore.

You are one hateful piece of sh!t - but then, there are many who might want to weight in...or not....or actually...whatever. I'm used to whatever comes my way...you're still a hateful piece of...(Don Q, where are you! I do this in your honor!...Hatefull B.., HB, protector of...where are you dude!)

Where is the moderator when you need them?

Lets see, one of my comments was deleted and my account suspended because I said you were fools. But, guess its ok for the left to call people a piece of sh&t and a hateful B.

That's a little over the top, WBEng, but I understand. I've got Katy264 on my ignore list (mostly redundantly filled with people who have been banned, some more than once) and only looked at some of his/her comments in this conversation because mightbealiberal's comment above indicated he/she had made a comment that needed replying to by me personally. And looking at Katy264's comments in this thread only confirm to me that ignoring him/her is the right thing to do. This person is not really interested in having a conversation (although I initially thought that was the case) but only in provoking a reaction. And getting any reaction provides validation for right-wingers, even and maybe especially negative reactions. Talking with people with different views is a good thing, but not when they're only interested in talking at you. And keeping your blood pressure under control is good, too, so the ignore is a useful tool if used for the right reasons.

I agree MM...but I've so had it with these people and the hatefulness they intentionally seek to bring here. I just have so had it. It's like these people have little to no heart, or soul, or humanity when they open up and let it all spew forth, over, and over, and over, and like nothing stops them, not even the moderators till it's laid waste to these threads. I think I now know why Don Q left the blog - I think he too got to the end of dealing with these kind of people (but I sure miss him). But you are right. More than right. I apologize.

Accepted, of course.

And, yeah, I can understand why someone would not want to deal with all the hate some people seem compelled to hose around all over the place. It was driving me nuts until I found out how to 'ignore' people. Of course, that only collapses their comments but I have to take the trouble to open each comment to read it. When I say it's helped my blood pressure, I mean it.

So, anyone reading this who doesn't know what I'm talking about: You just click on someone's name at the top of the post to take you to their Newsvine page. In the upper left in the About Whoever section there are several links. One is "Ignore this Author". (Another is "Add to Friends" which I just did to WBEng for being a mensch.)

Normally, I don't like using ignore features, but given the troll problems around here it's probably for the best. And if people like Katy end up just talking into empty space, maybe they'll be the ones to leave.

Meddling Monk, for someone that ignores my comments you seem to always have a response. I have no clue why anyone would think my comments in this thread were hateful. Since when is supporting the American family hateful? I just simply stated my point of view. And, yes you can deduct from my screen name that I am a woman! While you may not like my comments or style, it might interest you to know that today, while driving, I actually thought about something that was said in these posts and began questioning myself on my stance on gay marriage. I wouldn't exactly say that I am a convert, but it did make me think about it.

My question, is just how insecure are the people that they can't handle a different opinion. I mean, really, what good does it do to just high five each other for your similar comments when they go unchallenged.

And, there is no hate on my end. Sarcasm, sometimes. Hate, no! But I see nothing wrong with my above post and if someone can point out to me why I would be called a hateful B, and piece of Sh&T, I would appreciate it. In fact it was one of my milder posts!!

And this is funny a relevant because......

Moderator, where are you?