In response to:

Same-Sex Marriage: Still a Tough Sell

Diogenese_wy Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 3:15 AM
This issue hinges on the question of whether we are a society governed by traditionally accepted moral principles or whether we are to accept the secular view that each person should decide what is moral or not based on their own viewpoint (moral relativism). The first concept allows us to formulate laws and codes of conduct that are simple and easy to understand and obey. The second makes for inconsistency and confusion resulting in a break down of society. Under moral relativism, Timothy McVeigh was justified in what he did because he felt it was his moral duty, the same with the 9/11 terrorists. A very slippery slope indeed.
David3036 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 4:58 AM
However, the laws and codes of conduct in a secular nation are based on whether our freedoms infringe on someone else's freedoms. What Timothy McVeight did infringed on the rights of a whole bunch of people -- the right to life! Only about two of the 10 Commandments are the basis for any laws, so it's clearly not religion that dictates what the law considers to be moral or immoral. If anything, it is the Golden Rule (which, by the way, is not a Christian invention but an ancient concept that dates back to the earliest civilizations).

Same-sex marriage does not pass that test. It does not affect anyone except the same-sex couple. It doesn't force you to change your view of marriage, nor your church to change theirs.
Bill1895 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 6:05 AM
"same sex marriage" does effect everyone: less tax revenues, businesses will have to accomodate same sex couples, ect.

A good example of how homosexuals try to affect others would be their attacks on Chick fil a and the Boy Scouts of America.
Jay Wye Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 10:35 AM
your drive to enact homo "marriage" into law FORCES people to accommodate them,when they prefer to have nothing to do with homos. You folks certainly do -sue- when you're refused service by people who want nothing to do with homos,and you DO deliberately seek out such people to set up your lawsuits.
In effect,that FORCES people to change their views. And that IS part of the homo agenda.
David3036 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 1:40 PM
It is still legal in 29 American states to fire someone from a job for being gay. This perception that gay people always get their way or that they sue at the drop of a hat is stereotypical nonsense. You have ONE publicized case in which a lesbian couple sued a photographer who refused to photograph their wedding, while thousands of other gay couples would simply have hired another photographer.

Contrary to popular belief, gays do not insist on going where they're not welcome, hiring people who don't wish to serve them or forcing churches to conduct marriage ceremonies.
David3036 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 1:58 PM
As for preachers being prevented from preaching their views, that, too, is a red herring. Free speech in this country is absolute. Just look at the violence being spread today over an amateurish anti-Islam film, and notice that nobody is suggesting that the film can be censored.

Pat Robertson keeps warning his “700 Club” audience that gay rights advances will stifle free speech from the pulpit. But he has called Islam a “Christian heresy,” and the prophet Muhammad “an absolute wild-eyed fanatic -- a robber and a brigand.” And he wants us to believe that equal rights for gays will stifle the free speech of Christians who preach against homosexuality? Give me a break!
Jay Wye Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 6:26 PM
How quickly you forget how homos got Frank Turek fired.
I don't bother collecting all the other examples.
David3036 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 10:36 PM
Frank Tourek was a contractor, not an employee. There are no guarantees or job security when you work that way. His contract was terminated because his views were offensive to some people, including the people who contracted for his services. Free speech does not mean you can avoid the consequences of your speech.

If he was smart in writing that contract, he was probably very well compensated for the termination.
For most Americans, the meaning of marriage is simply common sense. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is at the heart of what most of us believe family should be. Even if we don’t all manage to live out that belief as perfectly as we would like, not everyone who opposes the redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples has a detailed explanation for their position. Just because someone is divorced, for example, does not mean he or she does not believe in traditional marriage. Everyday folks understand that society needs strong ideals to bring out the...