No, they're not.Homosexuals are being forced to abide by Christian rules. That's my point. And it isn't fair.
Marriage as its defined in our law is not religious, let alone christian, so they're not being forced to abide by Christian rule.s
Furthermore, marriage being between a man and a woman is not unique to simply Christianity, so again, no you can't say simply because that's the definition they're being forced to abide by Christian Rules.
Even further, there are some agnostic and athiests that still believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, further showing that no, that notion is not simply Christian and thus it being law does not mean they're being forced to be Christian.
Then you shouldn't make comments like stating that if the term marriage remains as between a man and a woman its essentially forcing gay people to be Christians. OR, when someone informs you of the error of that, you should look into it or acknowledge it.Look, I'm not really into the whole religious scene. I don't know about anything else other than Christianity, really. Even that, I don't know much about.
Off the top of my head I believe Jews and Muslims also believe marriage is between one man and one woman.
Doesn't matter, not the argument I'm making. YOU stated that because there was a law on the books that happened to coincide with Christian thinking on the matter that somehow that is "forcing" people to essentially be Christian. If that was the case then all those things above ALSO coincide with Christian thinking and thus would apply also.Okay, for the umpteenth time, homosexuality does not harm anyone or infringe on the rights of others.
Is that not correct?
First, you don't apparently know what seperation of church and state is. You can "believe" we don't all you want, that doesn't make it true. People voting based on their religious beliefs does not have anything to do with Seperation of Church and State.I don't believe we have separation of church and state. Gay people would be able to marry if we did. Without religion, there would be no argument against it other than bigotry.
Here, I'll help you.
Point me out the law where the government establishes a state religion, mandates a following of religion, or forbids a following of religion.
Second, that's extremely narrow minded of you. I'm not even against gay marriage but I'm not so bigoted against anyone that dares disagree with me that I hyper stereotype them. Do you honestly believe 100% of non-religious people either agree with you or are bigots? Here's a few off the top of my head:
1. Believing the government interest in marriage is related to the raising of a family and believing a traditional family offers the best chance for a child
2. Someone who is a staunch traditionalist, that realizes while perhaps "Seperate but equal" the attempt to use that phrase to harken back to the civil rights age is a bit dishonest as at those times the facilities/benefits under a different name were actually worse which would be different from this case where everything else would literally be equal.
3. Someone that believes the government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all and thus is against adding more to it, thus making it harder to remove
Are they great reasons? No. But at times some of the reasons people who want it give also aren't great. But they're at least legitimate opinions that aren't simply "bigotry". Lest you want to simply say "bigotry" is anyone that disagree's with you which seems to be the MO here.
The next bit of stuff was actually addressing the other side of the argument, such as Blackdogs comments, and why focusing on it from a religious stand point on either side is wrong.
Gotcha, so if they're religious and would vote based on their morals you don't want them to vote. Got it, you're intolerant to religious people. They have as much right to vote based on their views, morals, and philosophies as you or anyone else.If their beliefs and views impede on the lives of other innocent people, then I would not like them to vote.