Not quite sure what a "Loggie" is, that one wouldn't Google up properly. Again, the use of completely obscure words and references to make a point.
Any homosexuals happening to read this thread would probably hope that all who are against gay marriage are just like you - full of intolerance for anyone who questions your assumptions, brandishing eloquent-sounding words and little known philosophers in order to make an attempt at dazzling the other party with your intimidating brilliance. If you treat a fellow poster on a conservative forum like this, you have very little chance of winning over someone who is currently on the fence about gay marriage.
"Loggie" = Log Cabin Republican, the gay lobby of the GOP that sat outside the tent until the recapture of the Party by the Bush family, whereupon they were ushered into the tent even as the Christian Coalition types were sidelined.
Documentation of my last statement, that homosexuals have replaced the Christian Coalition within the Republican "big tent":
Gay-Triumphalist TIME Article from Oct. 2003 on Gay Overhaul of GOP: "The New Face of Gay Power"
Not even Kansas is Kansas any more.
As for "obscure philosophers", I've mentioned Maimonides, the Jewish Aquinas and principal founding figure in the intellectual tradition of Judaism, and Strauss, who is (was) a political intellectual rather than a philosopher who influenced numbers of conservatives like Harry Jaffa and (among Jaffa's other disciples) Alan Keyes. Straussians sort into East Coast and West Coast schools; Keyes is an exemplar of the latter, but don't get me to try to explain the differences between them. Generally, Straussians are secular conservatives but admit the social utility of moral and traditional, religiously-based values, customs, and institutions for fostering social stability and the general welfare.
I'm sorry if you find the reference to Strauss objectionable, but it's a fair reference, and I think it's properly used and salient to the point we were discussing, which was my assertion of the societally damaging nature of your take on traditional morals, which as I understood it was that you have no particular use for them any more and generally wish well to anyone who challenges religiously-based values.
Intolerance? For arguing my POV? You seem to be sidling over toward the big, red "BIGOT" button......
If you think I'm intolerant, go over on Buzzflash, find a gay thread, and tell them over there you think essentialism sucks rocks, and that most of them are psychological cases who'd revert to heterosexual behavior if they had a decent course of psychotherapy. See what happens.