Amen Vincent!

Frankly, what the Roman Catholic church has to say about the sinfulness of homosexual acts has nothing to do with the law in the United States. There is no established religion. There is separation of church and state. Get over it.

I notice, Vincent, that your list of what is condemned regarding the relationship of Roman Catholics to homosexuals doesn't include discrimination. How convenient.

Discrimination in any form is already mean-spirited.

So Swanson says, "Discrimination in any form is (always) mean-spirited." Let's quickly explore this statement shall we? Would it be mean spirited to discriminate against a person like Charles Manson or Osama bin Laden? All or nothing statements, like the one Swanson made here, are poorly thought out and basically pretty immature.

Carrying out justice is not discrimination.

Exactly, Robert. According to a view of "natural law" being the determining factor of civil law, any sterile person, such as a vet of one of our current wars who received a sterilizing injury, is committing a sin by even having having heterosexual sex since the union cannot reproduce. Such hypocrisy from a church that enforces unnatural celibacy on its all-male priesthood.

Dear Swanson, your statement which includes the following; "...from a church that enforces unnatural celibacy on its all-male priesthood", celibacy is not unnatural, even married couples must practice celibacy, abstinence, chastity, periodically and are blessed with the grace from God to do so. Please be aware that the priesthood is voluntary. Every man that discerns this as his vocation and proceeds toward that goal knows and is fully informed about the disciplines inherent with that vocation, including the discipline of celibacy. Again, God's abundant graces give each and every person working to do His will, and doing all that He commanded through His Divine Son, everything they need to fulfill it.

I never knew the US had a "empire," as empires are the things of kings and emperors...
Do you intend to marry your pet?
Seriously, though, the last I saw, none of the states that allow same-sex marriages or unions changed the standard rules that a marriage is between two consenting adults.

Hey Swanson, I'm talking about empire as in "world power". The fact that our society is in the process of embracing something as deviant as homosexual marriage, is simply another sign of the degradation of the country and its people. Just as Rome finally degraded and collapsed, so will America. We are currently on the downside and accelerating quickly toward the end. Looking back at our history, it was a pretty good ride, all things considered.

"as deviant as homosexual marriage" is an idiotic, close-minded value judgement. You offer no proof, you offer no logic.

Spoken like a truly committed politically correct leftist, Swanson. Good strong values helped America become a great nation. Attitudes like the one you are displaying here are currently tearing it apart, piece by piece. Unfortunately, nothing lasts forever.

Just what are those "good, strong values" that you are talking about, Mr. right-wing extremist (since you are obviously into name-calling, I feel free to do the same)? Individual liberty? Guaranteeing of equal rights for all? Read the Constitution and then talk to me about how you can justify your discriminatory viewpoints under the same, article-by-article.

Actually, many historians, I believe, would say that the fall of Rome was due to the fact that its empire (correctly used) extended far beyond its practical reach. In short, it sought to become the police force of the (then-) known world. If the US is going to fail as a world power (aside: why must it be the only world power?), it is more likely due to the fact that certain folks in the US think that we have to control the world.

OK Swanson, it is obvious that we both are firmly entrenched on opposite sides of the political fence. Our back and forth here has been a microcosm of the state of our nation at large. We are two hopelessly divided people, as is the country. There is only left and right now. If there ever was a center, it certainly doesn't exist anymore. I'm afraid we will just have to agree that we disagree. Believe it or not, I wish you well.

Dear Swanson, on the issue of equality it is not equivalence. Equality does not mean treating every person or group in exactly the same way. Men and women have equal rights under the law(though this has been hard fought), yet, because of their physical differences they still require different treatment medically speaking and thankfully still separate restrooms for obvious reasons. All persons must be treated with dignity and respect but not all exactly the same in every situation. Another example is in the home, raising children with good manners and integrity. Each one is unique and each requires unique treatment to bring about the desired virtuous formation, not even the same punishments bring equal results and one of the most frequent complaints among siblings is "you didn't treat Jimmy like this" - and the true response is, "you are right, because you are not Jimmy and it would be disrespectful to treat you as though you were". It is important throughout life to discriminate, to discern, and to treat each person with the love and compassion that they need and deserve-but not all are the same. Likewise dear Swanson no all relationships are the same or can be treated the same.

You honestly can't be serious, Mr. Levine -- homosexuality is the same as being a child molester or sexual predator? That type of thinking mostly died out 50 years ago. And, if you try to explain to your son how two males make babies, you'd definitely have a difficult time, and not due to your hangups, either. If you were to look around, I think you'd find that most children can handle age-appropriate discussions regarding sex. I don't think you'd be telling your 5-year son all of the details of how you and his mother conceived him either, would you?
"...marriage is a christian tradition to begin with"????? How do you draw that conclusion? Not only has marriage (in its various forms, including polygamy, the holding of concubines, and monogamy) existed in the Judeo-Christian tradition long before Christianity, but it also exists (in various forms, including monogamy) in almost all world cultures, including those that have nothing to do with Christianity.

Swanson, regardless of how many people choose to participate in homosexual behavior, it is still not right and should never be embraced by the society at large. There is much deviant behavior (aka sin) that happens all around us, but we should never stoop so low as to embrace it all as good.

Your use, Indepence, of "choose to participate in homosexual behavior" shows your ignorance. Homosexuality is not a "choice," just as heterosexuality is not a choice, nor is it simply a "behavior," just as heterosexuality is not a behavior.
If it were a "choice," can you seriously believe that gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. would choose to subject themselves to the discrimination, hatred and threats that we face on a regular basis?

Swanson, all people choose to behave sinfully at some point in their lives. You choose homosexual behavior, others choose adultery, and still others may choose to lie or steal, etc. All people on this earth have a very basic sinful nature. Let's not try to call good what is obviously bad.

Dear Swanson, you are correct, the begetting of offspring is NOT the only purpose for marriage, but the spouses openness to offspring IS fundamental to it. That openness is impossible in your case because it is physically impossible from the outset for two men or two women to generate life. Many couples marry with openness to children but are not capable, this is a great burden for them, but again it is their desire and potential for children. The other half of marriage is ordered toward the good of the spouses so, only half of the recipe for marriage exists for same sex couples why would the state or the church want to set anyone up for that kind of failure? Love is generative.

Oh, my Lord!!!! You cannot be serious! "Homosexuals do not want to be monogamous," "pushing the agenda to destroy the sanctity of the heterosexual marriage rite (sic)", "and still is a mental illness." Why would we want to be married if we wanted to destroy marriage? (Yes, I am married under German law.) Homosexuality was removed from the officially recognized list of mental illnesses decades ago. There may be some cases in which homosexuality can be linked to a hormonal imbalance, but almost all credible researchers and experts in the field would challenge your statement because they have not been able to clearly identify any specific "cause" of homosexuality (which, I believe, would also be like finding a "cause" of heterosexuality), and homosexuality has been around far, far longer than synthetic estrogens in plastics.
I have no plans to shake up society. I just seek to have the same rights as married heterosexuals (at least those few who are choosing to get married nowadays.) Were orgies to replace church worship, I would quickly remove myself from the church (yes, although you may find it hard to believe, there are gay church members, many in rather traditional churches (note: traditional does not always equal right-wing conservative.)
Your incredible generalizations and predictions of the future are laughable.

Dear Swanson your comment "can you seriously believe that gays, lesbians, transgender, etc. would choose to subject themselves to the discrimination, hatred, and threats that we face on a regular basis" I have heard many times. First of all, no person should be hated or threatened, that is always wrong. Secondly lets look at an analogy. The inclination of same sex attraction I liken to the tendency toward alcoholism that some inherit, not that these are equal but this is an analogy. Would you support alcoholics being told by our legal system or our churches; " we understand your weakness, and because we love you and you cannot help yourself go right ahead and drink as you desire? Would this be loving and compassionate? Would it be good for our culture as a whole? Instead we tell them loud and clear that it is unhealthy, deadly, and there are serious consequences for this behavior. In fact, it is illegal to be drunk in public and when operating motor vehicles etc. That is a loving, yet discriminating and responsible fact. The desire alone is not wrong, but the action of fulfilling that desire is. Similarly the desire an alcoholic has for a drink is not wrong, but he/she knows taking one is and that is the battle they fight each and every day. The battle over doing right and not wrong. There is help.

I don't believe that most with same sex attraction or those who support same sex marriage desire purposely to destroy the sanctity of marriage and our country but that will absolutely be a consequence if the movement succeeds. It is not wise to fool with mother nature.

Dear Swanson, FYI the APA changed the definition of same sex attraction from deviant behavior because and only because of Homosexual activism, not because of science.

I am openly gay and proud of it. However, if you were to meet me on the street or elsewhere in public, you, like many of my co-workers, would likely have no idea of the fact unless you were to hear me talk about something I had done with my husband.
As far as "flaunting" my sexuality: I do not appreciate it when anyone, "flaunts" their sexuality in public. But, if you consider doing "things" like holding my husband's hand for a short time while we walk home from a dinner party or giving him a brief kiss when we meet somewhere after work to be "flaunting" my homosexuality, I will quit doing them when you and others quit "flaunting" your heterosexuality by doing the same, or by hugging your children in public.

Thanks for the information Swanson. Now makes perfect sense to me why you work so hard to come up with your contrived justifications for the practice of this deviant behavior. Do your thing in private, but don't expect society to embrace it as well.

Swanson, you know as well as I do that hate has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Using the word "hate" is simply a way to dismiss the folks you disagree with. Admit it. You're giving up because you logically can't justify this deviant behavior. Here in America, it is certainly your right to practice any type of deviant behavior you wish, as long as it doesn't harm others, however, you simply can't expect everyone else to embrace it along with you. That is simply unreasonable. Thanks for the very lively debate. Too bad you gave up. I was really enjoying the discussion.

Agreed. Society is no where near ready for all the changes legislation like this will bring. Yes, deviant behavior should be tolerated, but society at large should never be compelled to embrace it by force of law.