We respect marriage; that is why I married my belovedand as for your comment on the validity of statuatory law, your argument does not hold true in a diverse, secular republic with freedom of expression.
Or are you giving us a vision of your dreams of a theocratic future?
No evolution
No women ministers
No women teaching men.
No birth control
No abortion
No science at all that contradicts your beliefs
No dissent from your own vision of christianity
Savoarola shared your dream.
He died in a public square in Florence after the public learned that any attempt to recreate a fundamentalist heaven upon the earth ends in a terrifying vision of hell for those forced to experience it.
We have your number now, you and yours Mr Knight. Savonarola attempted to wipe out the Renaissance, an era of change that your fellow Dominionists condemn publically as giving birth to the secularism of the Enlightenment. You are following his model.  

Robert “Prudence Pingleton” Knightbetter put that gun away!  If the homosex-obsessed wuss is trying to be intimidating by waving a gun around, I’ll be the first to let him know that some of us queers carry guns as well.
And we use ‘em, too!

I carry a SigSauerprosecuting the kinds of people that I do leaves me open to the ill wishes of their adherents.

I agree

To put it more simply, a statute that directly contradicts God’s moral law is illegitimate.

Well – my god is my pug, Louise.  She says that pot should not be criminalized, that there should be no corporate profits from providing medical care to human beings (or pugs), and that our money should not make the false declaration that everyone trusts her when it is well-known that followers of my cat, Eve, do not trust Louise.
Its high time that all laws contradicting the revealed morality of Louise be expunged from our statute books and consciousness.
So – lets hop to it!

people strive for immediate, sensory pleasure
 
it’s true, it’s true……buh hahahahaha

The ‘rights’ being violatedHe likes to talk about their rights being violated, but what about OUR rights?
That said, RI has had full EHCNDA (Employment, Housing, and Credit Non Discrimination Act)for LGBT people since 1996 and for transgender since 2001.
There hasn’t been one case heard in RI regarding EHCNDA.  

In Eve We Trust!I just can’t worship a god that pants, nothing personal.  

Troubling developmentsI think all this right-wing batshit crazy business is going to quickly get out of hand.
There was an article recently on commondreams that I highly recommend. It’s called Fascist America: Are We There Yet, by Sara Robinson.
http://www.commondreams.org/vi…
Following a model describing the rise of fascism developed by Paxton, she writes:

According to Paxton, the forging of this third-stage alliance is the make-or-break moment — and the worst part of it is that by the time you’ve arrived at that point, it’s probably too late to stop it. From here, it escalates, as minor thuggery turns into beatings, killings, and systematic tagging of certain groups for elimination, all directed by people at the very top of the power structure. After Labor Day, when Democratic senators and representatives go back to Washington, the mobs now being created to harass them will remain to run the same tactics — escalated and perfected with each new use — against anyone in town whose color, religion, or politics they don’t like. In some places, they’re already making notes and taking names.

I think this is a key distinction: that the acts of violence are being socially sanctioned. Not rational, not with any logical basis; it’s just lynch mob.
This is pretty serious stuff, and exactly whom do folks here think these lunatics will be hunting down?
In my part of the country it’s relatively safe for now. But I’d highly recommend that if you don’t have one, get a gun and learn how to use it.  

…And now… it’s time for a breakdown.Never gonna get it never gonna get it… Knight’ll never get it, never gonna get it…
*{{ahem}}*  ANYWAY.
1) Let’s assume, purely for argument’s sake, the truth of Knight’s contention that the channeling and/or sublimation of sexual gratification (through marriage) is a necessary condition for a productive society.  Wouldn’t the answer then be to expand the set of people who can enter into meaningful marriages with those to whom they are compatible?  Knight’s reasoning works better in an argument against all consensual fornication than against same-sex marriage (though I, of course, wouldn’t buy THAT conclusion either).
2) As I’ve earlier termed it, “strategic rhetorical imprecision”.  Societies that “lose respect for marriage” — how?  By ceasing to punish people for their private bedroom behavior?  By (given the darker desires of some of these Christianistas) “allowing” women to work outside the home?  By allowing to participate in the institution more people who are literally clamoring at the door to do so?  If the latter’s a loss of respect for the institution, then I guess I’d better not tell my friends about that nifty taqueria I just found in my neighborhood – after all, I wouldn’t want to “disrespect” the place by sending business its way.  ;-)  But the real function of Knight’s S.R.I. is to ensure that nothing can really be pinned down – that the argument can continue in lofty, unverifiable generalities – thus setting the stage for:
3) False dichotomy.  Implicit in Knight’s rhetoric are two simplistic claims.  One is a claim of fact that all people are either pious, opposite-sex-married Christians, or satyrs drowning in a pool of pheromones and endorphins.  The other is a conclusory statement that all of the former (and only the former) are “productive” and “creative” in the non-sexual portion of their lives, while all of the latter (and only the latter) fail to contribute anything of value even when not test-driving their genitalia.  
Now, let’s leave aside all snarkiness about Andrea Yates’ claimed religious justification for snuffing out five little lives, vs. Melissa Etheridge’s creative contributions to the world of music or Tammy Baldwin’s efforts representing the people of Wisconsin or Oliver Sipple’s saving the life of the President.  Even without that, we still have a loon who apparently believes that going out to get laid on the occasional Friday night leads inexorably into a pit of prurience where one can think nothing BUT lustful thoughts… and that even absent the psychological Slip-N-Slide he so cavalierly postulates, the lone purported indiscretion will prevent one from securing that big sales account, or finishing that masterful movie script, on Monday.  Well gee, I wonder what that tells us about his OWN past and/or willpower.  As the pithy wisdom of an earlier generation has it, “none preach so loud as the converted”.  :-D

Orwell would love that shoddy prose, strewn with dead mataphors.But it compliments the vaguely apocalyptic nonsense that they’re spewing.

It’s very sadThat the straight lifestyle demands “delayed gratification” and offers no “immediate, sensory pleasure.”
Or is that just Concerned Women who lead lives of quiet desperation and banal frustration?

The wingnuts are always bellyaching about the “original intent”of the constitution.  Well, the original intent of the first amendment’s “establishment clause” was precisely “establishment”–the prevention of the establishment of a state religion.  Yet with the passing decades that intention has been twisted so that the first amendment is used as a get-out-of-jail-free card for every religious crackpot and psychoneurotic preacher in the country.  And they will go right on poisoning the body politic with their pernicious nonsense until we get a president with the moral courage to appoint judges who will stop giving these lunatics a pass.  (And that sure ain’t gonna be Obama.  His “spiritual advisers,” most of whom are religious crackpots themselves, would never permit it.)

If my only choice was marrying a CWA hagI wouldn’t mind delayed gratifacation…oh honey I’d DEMAND IT!

Oh, come on.Seriously?

Peteyyou are mixing your movie-phors.

senility…it isn’t prettyit’s twoo it’s twoo