Like less than a hundred years lol
Not less anymore—in the USA, at least.
again, I don't think the government has the right to declare marriage to be a secular institution and define marriage however it pleases.
What I continue to not see you addressing is why the state has to adopt a religiously influenced institution of marriage at all instead of having its own completely secular and completely independent institution(s). If this was the case, there would be no grounds to object to some government agency with no relation to your religion granting homosexuals civil unions+ or whatever, right?
I disagree that is the reality. I believe that God's decree will come to pass, no matter what any individual human chooses to do. It's not on me to "get everything I want". It's not my job to win. It's on me to be faithful to what God has commanded me, and to do it to the best of my ability.
All the values established by God matter to me. I refuse to engage in cold political calculus by actively working against one value in order to advance another politically. To do so would violate that duty to be faithful to what God has commanded.
Why does any of this matter to you?
Because you are acting like a naive fool who thinks you will never have to sacrifice part of you principles or values to save another part.
It seems to me as a third party that there may be a problem of fundamental goals here. Bacle, you seem to be casting it as cost/benefit, taking what territory you can while not overreaching and losing everything, and different factions arguing over what territory is most worth taking. This is a practical way to operate. But the impression I've gotten from a couple of Stargazer's posts, including the above, is that he just disagrees: it's better to grab for everything and lose it all (in this life, anyway) because it's the will of God that people should do so; compromise doesn't gain you part of your political goals, it loses you Heaven.
Stargazer, please let me know if I've misinterpreted.
That’s what I asked. All Bacle has offered so far is that if the literal core values of a significant chunk of the party aren’t altered they would go back to the left. That screams fair weather friend to me, why bother going through the massive reorganization of the party that kind of change would need for someone who threatens to leave if not appeased? So my question is what policy sacrifice he and him are making/willing to make as to have that be worth it. I’m not asking on what policies they agree on, they are asking people to massively twist a fundamental value, I’m asking if they are willing to do the same.
That's one way to frame it, I guess. I read it more as, "This is a deal-breaker for me. Is it
really a deal-breaker for you? Because that would mean you lose the support of me and people like me on all the other stuff we either agree with or can tolerate because it isn't a deal-breaker." It's not a threat as much as a fact, and as for "why the party should bother," that question depends on the over/under on whom it's a deal-breaker for on both sides of the issue.
In that interpretation, "I'd have to twist a fundamental value for you, what fundamental value would you twist for me?" becomes a question of no value: it's either a deal-breaker or it isn't; if it is, game over; if it isn't, then it's not fundamental in the same way.
Bacle, please let me know if I've misinterpreted.