It is not that I am refusing to be corrected.**

Really? I still haven’t seen anything to the effect of “I stand corrected”. All I see is you continuing to defend your viewpoint, then your sources, but at no point have you even conceded that you might possibly be wrong, let alone admitted to being wrong.

Course you’ve avoided answering the question about civil rights, and Randi’s question about your belief in God. So I’m not terribly surprised.

There’s no point in me continuing to dialogue with you, you’re determined to be right on anything, and everything, despite clear evidence and sources.
That’s fine, I have better fish to fry.

Many people want to preserve marriage as a social institution that promotes a healthy integration of the sexes and the preconditions for responsible procreation. Such an attitude is not concerned with marriage as a vehicle for the happiness of adults; it sees marriage as about the good of human society. It is not fair to call people who see marriage this way as anti-gay.

David,

If this were true it might well be a starting point for conversation. We could discuss whether that is a reasonable intent for marriage and whether same-sex marriage either hinders or helps such efforts. In fact, this is the thrust of Jonathan Rauch’s lectures and writings.

But, alas, that is not the reason that Glendon, or indeed anyone I’ve experienced in the anti-gay-marriage movement has for opposing gay marriage.

You may question how I can know the motivations of Glendon. But it isn’t difficult.

Glendon’s proposals do not seek to limit marriage in any way that would encourage responsible procreation. They do not encourage the healthy integration of the sexes. They do not look at opposite-sex couples at all and are not concerned with how they impact the good of human society.

The only approach that Glendon has towards marriage is to exclude same-sex couples. Further, her primary purpose, as best it can be deduced, is to bring marriage laws into compliance with the teachings of her religious denomination.

David, I would prefer that those who have anti-gay biases not hide their championing of discrimination behind flowery philosophy that they clearly do not believe. It makes me think that in addition to a core belief in their own superiority (by condition of orientation) they also have little regard for their own integrity.

And to the degree that it does that prior to passing equal marriage for same sex couples it will continue to do that after passing equal marriage for same sex couples. The marriage of a same sex couple down the street in no way affects any heterosexual couple’s marriage. To suggest otherwise is to be a bigot as Glendon is.

For you to suggest we’re prejudiced against those who opppose equal marriage is absurd. We’re not trying to deny any such people rights, they’re trying to deny others rights and equality and that makes them prejudiced. Opposing prejudice is not prejudice itself.

It is not that I am refusing to be corrected. When I wrote that “morality is an inherently spiritual matter” and then defined sprirituality as “concern for what is eternally true about the human condition, persons, reality itself,” I honestly didn’t think I was saying anything that would cause such controversy. Call me a fool if you must, but that is the truth.

As for Wikipedia (which is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary), I was not using it as an authority. You said I was redefining words to suit my arguments. I pointed to the Wikipedia article to show that my understanding of the term spirituality is not unique to me.

* * * *

I am plenty interested in reasoned discussion. The hyper-emotional lack of reason has been displayed here by others, not by me.

I asked people to defend their calling Mary Ann Glendon an anti-gay bigot. What happened? I get lectured on every injustice ever done to homosexuals as if I were born yesterday, and accused of being unfamiliar with equal treatment before the law because I dared link to an article at American Conservative — even though I was pointing out the unfair treatment of a man for daring to criticize President Bush!

I explain my interests in comparative mythology and the philosophy of religion and how they color my perceptions of the spirituality/religion relationship, and for my trouble I’m accused of being deceitful.

So just who is having trouble listening and showing respect here?

I’m sorry for the long delay in responding; after my last comment my computer suffered a meltdown.

I have not accused you of being a bigot — a person who is completely intolerant of any belief, race, etc., different from his own. I said you displayed a prejudice against people who oppose same-sex marriage.

When you write that Glendon must “support civil unions for gay people, with all the rights and responsbilities of marriage, at both the federal and state levels” in order for you not to consider her an anti-gay bigot, I don’t see how my saying so is inappropriate.

Many people want to preserve marriage as a social institution that promotes a healthy integration of the sexes and the preconditions for responsible procreation. Such an attitude is not concerned with marriage as a vehicle for the happiness of adults; it sees marriage as about the good of human society. It is not fair to call people who see marriage this way as anti-gay.

In your dialogue with Randi you have leveled some accusations at me — accusations at which I take a great deal of exception. You both think you know where I’m coming from, but you don’t even though I told you:

Discussing his own thinking, the late mythologist Joseph Campbell once said that when he was in the Orient he was for the Occident, and when in the Occident he was for the Orient. I have taken this attitude to heart…

You must try to understand where an opponent to any social change you favor is coming from, rather than just assuming the opposition is motivated by hatred of you.