"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
Heartfelt religious conviction.

Last I checked, separation of church and state was still the theoretical
policy in the US. I don't find religious conviction to be a valid
motivation for lawmaking and in any case, the religiously convicted fall
smack in the "homophobe" camp. It's exactly this kind of imposition of one
person's morality on someone else, this intolerance of someone who's
different, that is so objectionable.

Where religious conviction parallels a genuine need to protect the rights of
someone, I have no problem with a law that mirrors religious conviction.
But laws against gay marriages protect no one, and only serve to oppress a
minority.

Seperately, a desire not to change a
multicultural, multimillenial institution based on only a few years of
call for change.

Ahh...the old "change is bad" philosophy. I've yet to hear of anyone
supporting these "no gay marriage" bills for whom that's their reason.
Please, show me someone whose reasoning is based on that. More
interestingly, show me a single person involved in pushing for these bills
(i.e. not just someone saying "yeah, it's a good idea...I'd vote for it")
whose reasoning is based on that.

Also seperately, but in part, a desire not to have
the Federal government involved or complicit in State affairs.

How does a state bill accomplish that? The federal government can override
the state rules before or after such a state bill is passed.

A few other reasons.

Such as? None of the reasons you've given so far in any way undermine your
coworkers initial assessment of "homophobe" for the folks supporting the
bill. It is a demonstrably fair generalization, even if a handful of
exceptions exist.

[...] But your own apparant (apparant!) failure to come up with
any motivation other than malice for it really does suggest you
haven't listened at all to the reasons offered with any kind of open
mind.

I have listened to every reason offered to me, and they all boil down to
basic intolerance of people who are different. I haven't attributed any
motivation to malice...I was just trying to figure out what reasons other
than intolerance you might have been referring to when I suggested malicious
intent.

...which is just the kind of demagoguery in evidence wherever the
epithet "homophobe" is tossed out. Can you prove that all the people
who oppose redefining "marriage" have fear of other real people at the
core of why they oppose it?

As I said before, the "-phobe" suffix isn't being used literally. But as
far as the actual usage of "homophobe" goes, yes...you need look no further
than the groups involved in writing and supporting these bills. They are
all actively anti-gay.

Or do you merely buy a 35-year-old party
line that traditional moralities must a priori be discarded?

I have no idea what that means. I don't find intolerance to be a
traditional morality. It's simply a natural human flaw, and one we ought to
be trying to rise above. I certainly do not feel that traditional
moralities must a priori be discarded, and I have no idea why you would
suggest such an inane idea.

Pete