Your observation changes nothing, I was aware of what I was saying. And I did not say invalidates Gay marriage. I said it is was impossible. Gay love and union validates itself. Nonetheless, it is a different thing than marriage. And you do come close to understanding my argument, there is no objective, empirical definition of love that marriage can be based upon. And saying that the love of a man and a woman in marriage is absolutely different than the love of gay unions is not mutually exclusive, but obvious. The loves work in and express in different environments that are mutually exclusive and therefore must create exclusive conclusions. It isn't that hard to understand.

Congratulations to your daughter, but otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no definition of love that is universally agreed upon. The great poet Elizabeth Browning could not define it, but only say how she loved Robert Browning. And actually love is highly discriminating, but then if the poets and holy men and women can't define it to everyone's satisfaction what chance do we have? Should we let the courts define it? I take no joy in hurting so many kind and wonderful people. Doing the right thing is not always easy. It is easy to denounce the thief, but much harder to tell your loved ones and friends and good people they are wrong and harming others.

You presume too much. I am not arguing from a Christian position, and "a multitude of 'gay acceptance' in other cultures" means nothing--truth doesn‘t care if you have a gazillion tombs. I have studied multiple cultures and there are none with Gay-marriage. Not a single one. As to gay acceptance having lived with gays and lesbians as either a roommate, or as landlord of the basement apartment just below her house I qualify as being accepting, especially as they were (I moved to a different city) both good friends. To review my argument go here: http://jonsplace.blogtownhall.com/

The dispute of Gay marriage Marriage is between a man and a woman. Love cannot provide a legal definition, do we want it to? Besides love is the poetry of marriage. The love of a man to a man is absolutely different than that of a woman to a woman, and both are absolutely different than the love of a man to a woman. Gay marriage is impossible if love is the definition of marriage, which I agree is no definition at all. Further by my stating the obvious, I do not accept your hatred and demand that I am denied the right of having gay friends, nor the vehemence of your hatred denying gays the right to be friends of people who disagree with their favor of Gay marriage--and what of those who disagree. I guess they are traitors of some sort.

Why yes the left does, but only when it's convenient. It is not convenient in this dispute because love justifies Gay marriage. But unfortunately, the love of a man to a man is absolutely different than that of a woman to a woman, and both are absolutely different than the love of a man to a woman. Therefore Gay marriage is impossible if love is the definition of marriage, which I agree is no definition at all. Further by my stating the obvious, I do not accept your hatred and demand that I am denied the right of having gay friends, nor the vehemence of your hatred denying gays the right to be friends of people who disagree with their favor of Gay marriage--and what of those who disagree. I guess they are traitors of some sort.

What rights are you talking about? OH, I know, you have no idea. You have no idea idea what you are talking about, but you sure find it fun being high and mighty. That goes for the rest who commented on this thread as well. Ignorance is its own best friend.

If I had an editor the second sentence would not have survived in tack. Put simply, the stanza struck me. I doubt it is famous, and that Eliot wrote greater verse. And what was playful at the time didn't stand the test. Oh, well. Besides, the quote stands for itself.

For Tacitus X Wrote: Inspired to read Eliot, T.S. by President Obama Neither famous to my knowledge and less profound than many I thought, a thought I thought I would share: Preludes IV His soul stretched out across the skies That fade behind a city block, Or trampled by insistent feet At four, and five and six O'clock: And short square fingers stuffing pipes, And evening newspapers, and eyes Assured of certain certainties, The conscience of a blackened street Impatient to assume the world.

If you believe you exist then that is a matter of faith. Reason can not answer anything unless directed to do so by faith. Reason has no starting point--it must be assumed which is faith.

Leon Penetta, Just another absurd member of the most absurd administration in history that is completely unafraid of exposing his cluelessness for all the world to see. Penetta is a tool. And I know many Republicans and some conservatives have lauded his stint as Sec of Defense. I despise him because he lends an air of respectability to the department that the Obama administration has treated as a leper when it isn't exploiting it for soliciting his own personal worship. The Defense Department looks like a wreck, aided and abetted by Leon Penetta.