Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?

It is also irrelevant. No one proposes stopping iano from telling his kids that it is a perversion.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

A democracy means everyone is equal before the states, not anything goes. Meaning if you have one right, so do the other. That's simple but it's to avoid conflict/favoritism that would end up in conflict. The reason polygamy isn't allowed is noone is allowed to have several wives/husbands(so everyone is the same in regards to that). Polygamy/polyandry isn't allowed because noone pushes for it and I guess it would be an hassle to administratively. It could be allowed if someone proposed a law with the proper framework but noone bothered. As for minors, they can't enter contracts that requires informed consent, it's not specific to marriage.I brought up the constitution to highlight what a democracy is and to show that it isn't just about voting this or that. As for the reason marriage for homosexuals should be allowed:
-allows the people concerned the same chances to happiness
-insurance
-adoption
-inheritance
-etc... (everything heterosexual couples are allowed to have under a marriage contract)
-equal rightsDownsides:
-some people don't like homosexualsI guess what I said was a bit off topic since the OP is "Hate the sin but love the person...except when voting?" but it seems you've shown the only reason you don't want homosexuals to marry is because you don't like it. You're just confirming the suspicion of the OP that you dislike the "sinner" so we have yet to meet one person who "hates the sin but loves the sinner".

Conservatives aren't so brain-dead that they'll vote against something just because it's "change". They have a tendency to want to keep things the way they are but they still have individual reasons for what they support and oppose.So your conclusion doesn't follow.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

So what should society base it's rules on? Prejudice? Bias? Reason? Freedom? Justice?When we step back and ask "How should society work?" do we start a list of prejudices and biases that are then used as a basis for taking away the freedoms of other people? I would hope not. Frankly, I think it should as long as they are of age (18 here in the States). Since it is a contract it does require someone of legal age. Also, parents can sign off on the marriage to make it legal for those not of age. When someone's rights are violated in the United States we claim that it is unconsitutional, not undemocratic. I don't think "democracy" is the word you are looking for. Perhaps you meant to say "freedom doesn't mean anyone can do anything they like"?

I wasn't talking of legal acceptability. I was talking of moral acceptability. I don't see how a 'better' message can be attached to something posited an immoral behaviour.- Thank you. What I seek to deny is societies affirming imprimateur on homosexual unions. This wouldn't prevent (nor would I desire that it prevent) homosexual relationships that may very well be happy and fulfulling.I don't see any particular reasion why homosexual unions should receive the same affirming imprimateur that hetrosexual unions attract.

I thinks God's desire would be best. But I accept that many won't agree and I've no problem with their attempting to shape society in the way that they see fit. It makes sense that society be shaped by the will of the people in it.- I don't think it's prejudice to restrain the degree to which sin is permitted to exert influence in the society in which I live. But if you don't believe in sin ...There isn't really much point going round the houses Taq. There are two irreconcilable worldviews behind our positions and there's little point in trading arguments based on those. The issue is "hating the person or hating the sin".If you can see/accept that my position focus' on that which the sinner carries with them into society and not on the sinner themselves then enough will have been said. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Of course, the problem is the positing part. Who gets to posit what's immoral and what isn't? Where did they get the authority do enter these judgments for everyone else? What about those who posit that interracial marriages are immoral? Should they be able to ban all interracial marriages if they are in the majority of those voting? I note that you didn't answer my question. Care to try again? Would you be as happy in your relationship with your bride if the government told you you couldn't marry? If not, please explain how denial of that happiness to others is consistent with loving them. A short primer on Constitutional Law.The Fourteenth Amendment contains, inter alia, the Equal Protection Clause, which states, "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Basically, what this means is that if a State wants to treat people differently, it has to have a reason for doing so. Thus, the presumption is that everyone will be treated the same unless one can justify different treatment. Therefore, we don't look for a reason for treating them the same, we look for a reason not to. And, absent a reason, we treat them the same.Now, I understand that you're not in the U.S. However, it seems to me that a basic premise that any governmental unit should treat everyone the same unless there's a reason not to is such a simple rule of fairness that I can't imagine any free country not accepting it as an axiom.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

That is one prong. Another is to prevent the normalisation of that which is considered perverse in the first place.

What do you think will happen to people that sees same-sex couples getting married?
What is the harm that will occur? This does not describe what harm would be done.
How would normalisation of homosexuality harm people?You say it is subjective, but can you not at least describe what you consider the harm to be?
Do you think people will see gay couples and think "Hey, I'll give that a go!"?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : typos

Fortunately, here in the US, what some religion considers perverse cannot be used to deny civil rights.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Just like interracial marriage?

Why should you, and those that think like you, be able to push your morals upon others? Why should a civil contract, between two people in love, be controlled by someone elses view on morals. You are showing by your arguments that you want everyone to have to follow your religious moral viewpoint. You will now claim that those in favor of gay marriage are trying to push their morals on you. The thing is, this is not about you. No gay person gives a rats ass about you and your morals. They do not care who you marry or what you do in your bedroom. Likewise they want the same treatment from you. There is a huge difference in the moral conflict between what those that support gay marriage want and what those that want to impose their morals want.What makes your morals any better than a gay persons morals? Or my morals since I support gay marriage.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Americans overwhelmingly find homosexuality a moral behavior. They deserve it, and there's no reason not to give it to them.That's why.

Not surprisingly when pressed for a reason all we get is some vague perversion reason.Iano just spouts the same crap that gay marriage is harmful to society but when pressed can not tell us what that harm is. He, like other homophobes(yes I called him that and I think his responses have shown this), want to claim make vague claims about societal harm. It all comes down to their religious ideals. That he throws out the word perversion makes this very clear. I thought we were well passed the time when people called homosexuals perverts. I can not see how love, sexual or not, between two consenting adults can be considered a perversion.Again this is nothing more than a religious person trying to impose his religion on the rest of us.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What I find bizarre is that the same acts are often not considered perverse when performed by people of opposite sexes. If it was really the "perverse act" that bothered people like iano, they'd be pushing to ban the act itself, not limit the freedom of certain people who perform the act. The opposition is clearly aimed at the people themselves, not at some supposed principle.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"