Before you even have a chance of being convincing about some topic and being taken seriously, first you need to start with facts, which you have not done a good job in these related postings.

For information I’m using, see here:

http://cbs5.com/local/proposition.8.spending.2.855582.html

The fact of the matter is this: your numbers are close to the total numbers for both sides, and yet, you purposely paint it as being for exactly one side: this is not going to remotely help your case, because this information isn’t a matter of opinion, but of verifiable fact, for those that do just a little effective use of a search engine.

There is so much more you go out of your way and get wrong, but there’s no point in continuing to try to point that out: evidence is that you’ve gone out of your way to censor anything you don’t agree with, regardless of what the reality is, so I would only expect more of the same, logically.

Stick to the technology realm, if you want to have a chance of being taken seriously: going into this realm with all your own bigotry and presumption of facts that just aren’t so, is not going to achieve anything good or valid, and if you truly had no fear of being wrong, you wouldn’t censor those you feel are not right in their replies, as long as they didn’t do something stupid like make death threats against you or some other group (I can’t see that happening, at least not without the inflammatory comments you’ve made about at least one group which has extremists that might do it: I’ll leave that one up to your imagination) because it doesn’t put you in any position that makes you look reasonable.

Homosexuality was a relevant topic in Jesus’ time. Jesus preached to more people than just straight laced Jews. (Now that I think about it, most of Jesus’ apostles were scum bags.) Some whom Jesus tried to recruit (Greeks/Romans) engaged in homosexual activity. But we do not have any comments from Jesus on the matter so we can only wonder what he thought about the subject or how he likes being used as a crutch in a charged social/political discourse.

[Yeah: Jesus didn't "try to recruit" Greeks and Romans. He exclusively addressed Jews and Samaritans (who were mixed Hebrews). Matt. 10:5 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles" Matt. 15:24 "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" John 4:22 "Salvation is of the Jews". This isn't a matter of conjecture or opinion. It's a basic concept of the Bible. Nobody that Jesus addressed tolerated homosexuality. Christians didn't begin evangelizing non-Jews until Paul in Acts, at which time Jesus was dead. Literally, for Christ's sake, don't make shit up to impress us with your capacity for supposition.]

Next, you lost me with “If it were [a nation being led by Jesus], there’d be as much blood running from the public squares as there is in Iran.” Jesus was not a proponent of Mosaic punishment. (“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”) And what does the democratic process in a country which separates church and state have to do with Iran’s theocratic republic anyway?

[Proponents of replacing the Constitution with the Bible don't follow Jesus, they prefer a return to the stoning of Leviticus, the place where the Bible advocates throwing rocks at gays until they die. Proponents of what Jesus talked about don't advocate setting up a human-run theocracy in the first place, because Jesus never advocated that.]

Crying Nazi is a neat trick. It implies opponents of gay marriage hope to round up and exterminate people. And I don’t think the Nazi Party was big on Christianity, unless you count Hitler’s “Positives Christentum” which uprooted Jesus’s Jewish origins and minimized a very important part to the story… that He died.

[No it implies you have fascist ideals of pushing your ideology on the populace and scapegoating people you hate. And the Nazi party very effectively used religion, both Protestant churches and in forming a concordat with the Pope.]

So tomato, tomato… potato, potato… gay marriage, civil union. If the poles are right and many of the religious conservatives would be FINE with same sex civil unions, why not call it that for now and let couples unite, get the financial benefits and raise families. THEN start calling it whatever the heck you want to call it. Or is a single word so important, it’s worth disrupting families and preventing adoptions to prove a point?

[Problem is that California doesn't have same sex civil unions. Only VT, CN, NJ, and NH do. Further, a significant difference between marriage and civil unions (or domestic partnerships) is that only marriage offers federal benefits and protections.

So even the status quo is grossly unfair on legal standing. Your religious ideas would strip gays of further benefits in the name of "protecting" you. That's the issue you don't seem to have the ability to comprehend.]

Please someone pitch an idea polarized Californians can agree on so we can move on to important things like mortgage payments and clean energy.

[How about religious fanatics not bring $70 million in beneficiary-free wars to California to advance their own religious views? I'd much rather have written about Prop 1A, CA High Speed Rail, than why religions are pushing their hate with Prop 8.]

Thanks for sticking up for us. If I marry, it will be same-sex. Maybe next time, do it a few days earlier.

1) Most law is based on the public perception of what is moral.
2) Homosexuality is a moral issue.
3) Religions teach morality.

Morality is not a set of rules in a dusty old book.
Homosexuality should be of no concern to people not engaged in it.
Religions constrain the pursuit of truth by an arbitrary set of rules proposed by a mythical deity.

@swinn”Using highly charged emotional language, ridicule, or insinuations of conspiracy to make an argument does not speak well for the rationality of the case you are making.”

Your circular logic may work on young minds in faith schools, but here your a posteriori assertions are open to the ridicule they deserve.

Amazing to read Christian posters attempting to claim the moral high ground, for their bigoted views, and excellent to read Daniel’s replies.

I firmly believe that consenting adults should not be discriminated against because of their choice of partners.

To the church of LDS, I know this is true because I read it in the bottom of my hat!

Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)

[Leviticus also proscribes death for eating pork, fornication (like Palin's daughter) and mouthing off to your parents and lots of other stuff. If your concept of Christianity seeks to push the world back well past the 13th century BCE rather than the 13th century CE (the goal of MOST radical christianists) well then you're even more specialized in your beliefs than the common wingnut. ]

But the point is not does God hate gays or politicians more. The point is there is a group of people (Including Obama, Palin, McCain and Joe the VP) who do not support gay marriage.

[There is no correlation between "supporting gay marriage" in a political sense and supporting the revocation of civil rights for gays to marry in a state where they have the legal right. This is one point you don't understand. ]

Many of these people will stick to their guns regardless of legislature or court rulings. Also gay marriage is not thrown in Leviticus as an aside. It is part of a long list of rules God supposedly handed down for followers to live by. That particular section includes several other notions which society still generally acceptes as the norm. This includes not marrying your sister, your father or your camel. Why does gay marriage suddenly get a break in the 20th and 21st centuries? Conversely, why don’t sisters and camels get a break? The number of people with Oedipus complex are a minority but don’t they have rights to marry and be happy?

The Jesus argument is specious for exactly the reason you point out. The Council of Nicaea never included any remarks from Jesus on gay marriage. So no one alive today can suppose his stance on the matter.

[Ridiculous. Jesus came out of the Jewish religion where being gay was penalized with death by stoning. Jesus didn't have to say anything against gays because it was not a controversial idea at the time. But the issue you fail to understand is that the US isn't a nation being led by Jesus and the Bible. If it were, there'd be as much blood running from the public squares as there is in Iran. ]

As for your closing remark, I was not aware knowledge of a subject supposed guilt. I didn’t even know I had a religious book or that I was trying to get into heaven until you implicated me just now.

Again, the point is not a plug for or against gay marriage. The point is neither side (as you exhibited in your reaction) will give ground because both claim the moral high ground. Changing one side’s opinion or finding a compromise will be difficult issue with no easy answers for a long time.

[It's not a compromise once you give up your demand to push your religion on others while cowardly saying that you're only 'redefining words' that really don't impact anyone apart from making you feel smug, and that you don't really hate anyone. Covering up bigotry and hatred with a cross and a flag didn't work for the Nazis, and it won't work in the US either. ]