I think the use of a term like "sodomite" is fine for a religious discussion, but its use in a political discussion destroys any notion of reasonable discourse, and is the type of labeling usually used by liberals to prevent disagreeing voices from being heard.
Think about how liberals use terms like homophobe, bigot, insensitive, neo-con and others.
Although I agree that "sodomite" is not a useful term for political discussion, it is not for the reasons you cited. It is a loaded term, which riles the pro-sodomites into conniption fits of hatred. Why, you might ask? Because it is merely truthful and descriptive. A sodomite is one who practices sodomy. Cut and dried. The words "homophobe, bigot" etc are a different class of words. Homophobe is an invented word, to shut up the opposition. Bigot is a real word, but used in an dishonest way, for the sole purpose of painting anyone who disagrees with the "gay" agenda as a KKK type.
By using the term "sodomite" you have done the same thing.
You are placing yourself on the pro-homosexual agenda side with this statement, although you may not mean to be. See my explanations above.
Personally, I consider myself a true constitutional conservative.
If you are a true constitutional conservative, then the founders of this country must have all been lunatics, since up until the advent of the homosexual activist movement, anyone espousing the thought of same sex marriage would have been scorned and perhaps been placed in a mental institution.
The way I see it, if heterosexual marriage can provide for legal benefit such as shared household health coverage or death benefits and the legal sharing of resources without probate and wills, then the constitution must extend these same rights to others.
So according to your logic, all these benefits should also be available to anygroup of people who want them. Why limit it to two men or two women? Why can't they be related by blood? Why can't it be available to three or five or ten people?
. Think about this- if you can limit the rights or privileges of groups you disagree with simply because you are in the majority,
How in he!! are anyone's rights being limited? If you agree with the "gay" activists that their rights are being denied, then you must think that mere behavior constitutes a group that then can moan about their rights being denied. Today it's homosexuals, tomorrow it will be polygamists, then pedophiles. It's in the workds already.
then 20 years from now when the world is godless and lost, will you idly accept it when religious or heterosexual monogamous people's access to services is restricted?
Services? What do you mean? Religious services? If the government starts interfering with religous services then it's immediately the second Civil War.
is that in the constitutional republic the majority MAY NOT use its influence to restrict or disallow privileges to the other groups.
Yes, but that word "groups" has never before been twisted to mean an amorphous group based solely on their perverse sexual desires and acts.
If Madison saw fit to make our country a model after God's own creation, with freedom rather than restriction,
You are being extremely disingenuous (or ill-educated) to bring in Madison - if he were here to speak for himself, I very much doubt he would step up in favor of two men marrying each other because they are addicted to anal sex.
then who the hell do you think you are to throw it away and go with mob rule?
So maintaining some basic standards of traditional morality and support of the natural family is now "mob rule"??? You're getting carried away here.
If we ignore this, we are no different from the Ayatollahs of Iran.
Ah, now we're Ayatollahs, because we want to continue in accepting "marriage" to mean "marriage" and not change it to mean "two men having anal sex but very likely not even being monogamous" or "two women doing strange things with implements and one of them being artifically inseminated".
(Sorry for the length, anyone who reads this, but his points cried out for a rebuttal.)