Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
Reality is that which when you start believing in it, does go away.

I just wanted to see if you changed the doesn't to does and changed the verb from stop to start if the quote would make more sense to me. It all sounds so profound. To me, I think the word should change from reality to fantasy to fit.

Fantasy is that which when you stop believing, doesn't go away.
Fantasy is that which when you start believing, does go away.

Would it not be better to say that reality is something that you believe because it doesn't go away? I mean, let's face it, you are going to p*** away just the same as me, so at death you stop believing and you also go away. Death is a reality, but what is after that no scientist can give answer excepting as the state of inanimate corpse. Life is a mystery. And life as a reality comes from God. God is believed, and the cause of life still brings wonder and religious speculation. I believe in life, but I shall die just the same as you. And then the new reality sets in, the one that you cannot speak of.
I'm afraid I don't understand most of what you're saying here. The point I was trying to make is that reality is not affected by your belief or disbelief therein. It's not reality because I believe in it; it's reality independent of my belief or otherwise.

Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
I don't really have much of a stereotype when it comes to ****sexuals.
Your earlier posts seem to contradict that, in which you implied that gay people are "city slickers" and don't exist in "small town America".

I know the Church teaches that ****sexual acts are "disordered." I believe it is disordered because of sin. I know that you do not agree with me. And this discussion can go on and on. We are saying the same thing over and over again. You don't accept the authority of the Church,
So far I'm with you on all counts.

you think it is unfair that we are to vote based on our moral principles and this conflicts with yours. If you want to call me unfair or restricting freedom because I accept the authority of the my Church to its consistent logical conclusions, so be it;
No, rather I think that it's unfair that you may have the opportunity to vote on the matter at all.

"Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
– U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

I still will call your position immoral even if the legal system p***es the very things you are attempting to gain.
Feel free to do so. You will remain free to do so as long as that First Amendment remains intact.

That is the price of a democracy, competing values means the legal system takes sides and this can go back and forth.
That's true, but the price of our living in a cons***utional republic (and not a democracy) is that the majority cannot vote to limit the fundamental rights of a minority.

I am also not for an amendment in the cons***ution for defining marriage between only a man and a woman. However, if it came to a vote, I would support it. The reason I am not for the amendment is that it is already understood by its longstanding tradition. It is a waste of time.
A very strange position, if you ask me. "I oppose this amendment, but would support it if I could." Doesn't seem to mesh with your statement that you believe this matter should be up to local municipalities to decide.

And you didn't answer the question about DOMA.