"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Government should not have the right to define the relationships of two consenting adults. Nor should it have the right to control what two consenting adults do to each other, sexually or otherwise.
That's a conservative position, whether you personally agree with homosexuality or not.
THerein lies the hypocrisy IMO (or 1 example)....they do treat gays differently from other sinners yet cannot explain why. And they havent been able to show any harm that SSM or gays do. While it's very evident that adultery does indeed harm individuals and marriage.
He has chosen to ignore me after I continually pressed him for an answer on this....because he was unable to explain. Yet the hypocrisy remains in print....
Does your God have an 'all in, all out' clause? If thats the case we're all destined for Hell, since...hate to tell you this...only about 30% of the world is even Christian. Buddhists, Jews, Muslims...the list is endless believe in many things which would consider mortal sins.
Does their very existent invalidate any of your beliefs, or affect the sanctity of your vows?
I support the right to keep and arm bears
If that is no longer a good enough reason for the people of a state to exclude same-sex partners from their marriage laws, it will no longer be a good enough reason to prohibit these other acts, either. If it were unconstitutional to exclude same-sex partners from marriage laws, why would it not also be unconstitutional to continue to exclude partners who were more closely related by blood than some specified degree--i.e. partners in adult incest? You know--equal protection, and all that.
The intellectual dishonesty--or maybe it is just lack of intellect--on display in many people who assert that something in the Constitution prohibits any state from excluding same-sex partners from its marriage laws is stunning. What they are desperate to deny is that declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would remove the basis for laws against a wide range of other acts.
These people want to have their pet activity declared a right, and then, once that's done, arbitrarily deny people the right to engage in public nudity, bestiality, public masturbation, adult incest, bigamy, polygamy and so on. It's funny to watch them try to cook up harmful consequences that legalizing these things would supposedly have, since that is the very thing they constantly accuse people who oppose declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right of doing. I can't just see the would-be adulterers, nudists, bestialists, etc., furiously accusing everyone of bigotry for denying them their equal rights.