*IF AND ONLY IF** you disagree with legalizing same-sex marriage in the US, what is wrong with this reasoning?

Question

In the US, we have a right to participate (or not) in whatever religious tradition we choose. This freedom of religion means allowing others to have their own moral code; people might have their store open for business on Sunday, or attend a mosque for worship, or drink/smoke/gamble, or write books/make movies about offensive topics, or have sexual relations outside a committed relationship, or even form a household with someone of the same-sex.

Laws should forbid things that are intrinsically, verifiably, and significantly harmful to people and/or society. Same-sex marriage, IMO, doesn't fit those criteria. Therefore, a law against it would be based primarily on religious opinion. BTW, giving rights to only traditional marriages IS THE SAME AS outlawing SSM.

Either you believe in the Freedom of Religion and therefore legally allow people to hold and practice either Christian or non-Christian values AND ALSO not legally endorse one value system over another OR YOU DON’T.

Answer 1

By LAW, marriage is a civil contract. You can get married in a court house without mention of any deity or faith. Religion is not meant to have any power over who can and cannot LEGALLY wed...

There's nothing wrong with your reasoning.

Answer 2

I agree with everything you said, and I just wanted to make the point that marriage is not a religious act by law, like the first answerer said. If this was the case, civil marriages wouldn't be recognized, and only ones that were performed in a church or by some kind of religious official would. This, clearly, is not the case.

Answer 3

genuinely, i think of SSM might desire to be felony, or a minimum of the rights linked with it would be. enable me rephrase that - i could take the be conscious "Marriage" thoroughly out of the lawbooks. extremely, the felony term could be "civil union" (or comparable). all human beings who's presently married could be without delay entered right into a civil union. From then on, "Marriage" is thoroughly a non secular term. It supplies no state or federal rights, nonetheless it may supply you rights interior of a church. I assume there could be a type of civil unions defined - on the muse of practicality basically. Does society want to inspire human beings in love with one yet another to stay with one yet another? ok, we've a union type for that. It has tax and rights implications. How a pair of felony dedication between human beings for care alongside with between baby and make certain getting into into the eldercare device? super, we've a freelance for that too. whether, I question your word "forbidding issues that are intrinsically, verfiably and critically volatile to human beings". It sounds greater like a vivid line than that's. the place does abortion fall? How approximately self protection? For greater acceptable or for worse, faith (whether you're actually not non secular) finally has a great consequence on your thought of appropriate and incorrect. Its not sparkling to me that we are able to ever satisfactorily separate what's sweet and incorrect from what's religiously appropriate and what's non secular incorrect.

Answer 4

I personally think there's nothing wrong with homosexuals being able to get married...it should be their right just the same as it is for any heterosexual couple. *shrug* there are many things in this world that /should/ be, however. It's a real shame that some people in this (secular) country think that people who don't believe in their god really give a **** about what it 'commands'.

Answer 5

In the secular world you can pass a law to marry a horse if you wish - but that doesn't change God's commandments one whit - and that's what irritates and infuriates the secularists.

Answer 6

Simple...
By LAW, Marriage is a religious act.
By religion (any religion), marriage is between a man and woman only.

Answer 7

all services will be held in Iran