Quote:It's already legislated, we're discussing a legislative change via judicial fiat. I've not suggested that we write laws to ban gay marriage, but others have decided that marriage, as we've defined it for our culture's entire history, is now something else, which inevitably opens it up to further changes (something apparently denied by those who strongly supported the first change).


And your concept of moral equivalence is quite faulty, though we obviously cant discuss why. Simply compare the morals of ISIS to your own and you'll see that "ones not right and ones not wrong" collapses on itself. Some morals absolutely are immoral, though the degree of response is different to sexual perversion in a free society versus headchoppers in a tyrannical one.

 

And please don't forget that my own position on this is similar to yours, I don't think the government has any business writing laws about marriage. I don't have to try to legislate immorality out of existence unless the immorality is something that needs to be obliterated for the good of all (slavery, murder, rape for example)

 

But if we determine rights based on one person's religion, who's to say we won't start determining rights based on someone else's religion?  


Just look the middle east, and see how they're doing in regards to having religious-based rights.  I don't think you'd want that here any more than I do.  But to decide someone doesn't deserve certain rights because of religion opens that door.  


Marriage is an institute that has evolved over time.  Some for the better, and some for the worse.  At one time it was commonly acceptable to marry a baby.  Each person's marriage is their own, and can only be defined by their own actions.  Otherwise Kim Kardashian ruined the sanctity of everyone's marriage (along with the vegas drunk weddings) not to mention all the people who used marriage as a business merger.

---