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

This goes back to Taz's point above. This isn't really what they believe. It may be what they say, but it isn't what they actually think. They think homosexuality is icky and gross. It makes them very uncomfortable. They think it is sinful. Therefore, homosexuals should not get married.It has nothing to do with society since homosexual couples are already raising children in a family unit and it works just fine. Banning homosexual marriages will not stop (and has not stopped) homosexuals from living together and raising children together. If anything, the "family values" crowd should be promoting the idea of homosexual marriages since it provides legal protections to these families that will help them succeed (such as access to health care for the children).

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"?

Then why don't you get God to post on this forum and tell us what those desires are. Religiously based prejudices are still prejudices.Also, the whole point of the US Constitution is that restrictions on freedom should not be based on religious edicts. I don't know how Ireland's government is set up, but it may very well differ from the government here in the US. Not allowing homosexuals to marry does not remove them from society. They are still living together and raising children together whether or not they are married. Allowing homosexuals to marry in no way changes the fact that you think it is a sin. I can't see the ban on homosexual marriage as anything other than a petty punishment for those that you look down on.

That is exactly the idea of freedom that our founding fathers held. They had the audacious idea that people should be able to decide how they will live their lives instead being told by the government how they will live their lives. Crazy idea, isn't it? Why do you want to keep people from living their lives as they see fit and in a way that doesn't impact?

The government does not decide what is and isn't sinful. That is between a person and their god/s, if they have one.If you think homosexual marriages are sinful then don't enter into one. Seems like a simple solution to me.

In the US the government is not allowed to restrict the freedoms of others for religious purposes. You, yourself, can tell the whole world that you think it is wrong. You can even try to convince homosexuals that they should not get married because you think God forbids it. However, the government is not allowed to do this (again, we are talking about US law, Irish law may differ).ABE: I should say that the US government is not allowed to restrict the freedoms of others based on religious reasons. Whether marriage falls under this category is a matter that the courts are dealing with now. I am still looking something based on Reason, not religious belief. How is gay marriage an attack on marriage? If marriage is the bedrock of society then you should be all for homosexuals getting married.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I know at least two lesbian couples that have used sperm banks to father children. I also see no reason why two gay men could not adopt a child that would otherwise live their lives cycling in and out of foster homes. By allowing these couples to marry you offer these children legal protections that they would not otherwise have. How is this a bad thing? In our society marriages are secular, not religious. They are legal contracts that have nothing to do with the religious beliefs of the couple.

That's fine, but we are talking about US law that must be fair to everyone, including those who do not accept your religious beliefs.The fact is that these families exist right now. They are a part of society right now. Nowhere did I ask you to change your beliefs about homosexual marriage. If you think it is wrong then do not enter into a homosexual marriage. It is that simple. However, your religiously based prejudices should not restrict the rights of others. You do not have the right to decide how others should live their lives. The relationship between a person and their creator should be left to that person and their creator. Take away the legal protections and see how they like it. No longer can wives be put on their husband's health insurance. No longer does a wife have the right to visit her husband in the hospital if the husband's family decides to ban her. No longer do stay at home wives have some financial security if the husband decides to run off with another woman.If the legal protections were so unimportant then people would not sign the legal documents and consider the priest's say so as the final word.

Allowing homosexuals to marry is not promoting homosexuality. The ban on homosexual marriage is merely a punishment that serves no purpose other than to reduce the freedoms of others that they don't like. I wouldn't go as far as "hate", but it is serious when we take away people's rights based on prejudice."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Do christians agree with this statement?

Banning homosexual marriage does not make homosexuals become heterosexuals. Those who are voting against the bill know this. So they are not trying to stop the sin, even if they claim as much. Is America promoting homosexuality because we do not lock up homosexuals? Is American promoting homosexuality because we allow it to occur? If not, then how is allowing homosexuals to marry in any way promoting homosexuality? It isn't. Even a cursory glance at the argument shows it to be an invalid one, and I think deep down the anti-gay marriage crowd knows it. They don't care. It is their cover. A facade-like argument that is meant to hide their less attractive attitudes towards homosexuality.So what are they really saying? That homosexuals are below heterosexuals on the social ladder, and we want to keep them there. This is what the ban is all about. It is Jim Crow law, but without even an attempt at the "but equal" part.

Then they should be voting to ban divorce for those who get married in a christian marriage ceremony. Actually, I think you are wrong on this one. There is a portion of christians who see this country as a christian nation founded on christian law. Their religious views are melded in with their view of what America is. In "their" country gays should not marry because being gay is sinful and therefore they do not deserve the same rights as I do as a heterosexual. Did people make blacks sit at the back of the bus because they hated them? Perhaps hate is the wrong word, but it taps into the same basic emotion.

If one partner in a marriage has a job that allows the spouse to be on their health insurance then heterosexuals get to take advantage of it. Homosexual do not. Homosexual partners can be banned from hospital rooms by the family of the person in the hospital. Wives and husbands can not. A homosexual partner can not sue for alimony. A heterosexual partner can. None of these legal perks have gone away for heterosexuals, and none have been extended to homosexual couples.What I have noticed in my generation (36 yo) is that people have been turned off by the idea of marriage because of friends getting divorced or their parents getting divorced. People are waiting to have children until much later in life compared to previous generations (I don't have the statistics, it is more of a gut feeling). However, the legal perks of marriage haven't changed. A rose by any other name . . . Not to discount your question, but it shouldn't be put up for vote. With that said . . .Voting is not a sin. However, I think people should judge their own motives and make that determination themselves. Even though I have tried to claim what people "really think" it still makes me uncomfortable doing so. I have pushed that as far as I want to. All I can do is point to the weakness of the rationale that they are using and infer that there is something else going on.

Allowing gays to marry is not the same as promoting homosexuality. We allow people to consume alcoholic beverages, but that in no way encourages consumption. What definition of love involves taking away their freedoms and liberties?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then you need to show how banning gay marriage prevents people from being gay.

What I have shown is a disconnect between the claimed motivation and the results of the on-the-ground action. You claim that you do not want to vote for something that would promote or propogate homosexuality. Voting for gay marriage does not promote or propogate homosexuality. People are gay whether or not they are married or allowed to be married, and they will be involved in homosexual relationships whether or not they can get married.