On purity, compromise, core values and moving forward.

I have seen a few posts on DU decrying "purity". I do not wish rehash any primary arguments, but looking forward I have to wonder: Which exactly are core positions that we should consider non-negotiable?

I mean criticizing purity is all good and well, but when it boils down to individual issues I think the reality is that many people have things they consider deal-breakers and things they are more willing to settle for half-measures on.

So, I'll go first:

When it comes to guns, I guess I'm not a "purist" of any sort. I don't own any, but I'm not in a hurry to disarm my redneck family either. I can see the rural and the urban point of view to some degree.

I've always been in favor of equal rights for gays, all the way back to my early teen years. I think I was for equal rights as early as I was able to form an opinion on the subject. And I was willing to catch shit from conservative relatives over it, and to grow my hair long, probably at the age of twelve. I very much consider equality a non-negotiable position. At the same rate however, I realize that the LGBT community seems to be by-and-large fine with Democratic politicians who aren't openly hostile to them at the present, no matter what their stated positions on the subject were in past years. I don't feel like I am in a position to argue againt this. Some might consider this lack of purity.

War and peace: What I would like is a politician who not only calls the Iraq war a mistake, but acknowledges that it was a crime against humanity, then pushes to recognize the international criminal court and turns Bush and Cheney over to it. I know I'm not going to get this. What I would also like is to get rid of all politicians that were played any part in making the war happen. I know I'm not going to get that either. I guess I'm willing to settle for a leader of whom I am reasonably sure that they won't start any new unnecessary wars. I guess that some would still consider this a "purist" position.

Money in politics, that one is tricky. Where I live, a cop can lose his job for accepting a 10 dollar tip. It is simply assumed that a person in such a position of authority will become corrupted by accepting even the smallest of favors. Politicians on the other hand are cut much more slack. I find this somewhat unfair. I would rather see the same set of rules applied to all public servants.

I get the vibe that those who decry purity cosider this specific issue one that we should be most open towards.

I would like single-payer health-care but would settle for a public option.

So, how can we agree upon for which issues a "non-pure" position is acceptable? Should women's rights be on the table? Should protection of the environment? I cannot see how that would be a good idea.