_____________________
Experiencing a slow PC recently? Fix it now!

First, you never address the argument that gay couples should has civil unions, but it should not have the title of marriage. Civil Unions allow the same rights, e.g. right to visit your partner in the hospital.

Second, the idea of a slippery slope is still valid because in some cases it is consented. Thus they should have protection under the 14th Amendment.

I love you, and no we are not a gay couple.

Thank you my friend, I hope I get that A.

First, you site Nazi soldiers caught after World War II to warrant your assessment that sometimes the law is not right and that it “contradicts” religion in certain instances. However, it is important to note that these ‘laws, which Hitler forced his soldiers, not all, to carry out, such as exterminating the Jewish people, are examples of audacious laws implemented by sick, unjust governments which oppress its minorities; sounds familiar, no? Moreover, it is absurd to equate the mass killing of an entire race to couples begging for the same rights “monogamous,” heterosexual couples do. Homosexuality is a preference of people of your same sex that does not harm anyone, or shed any blood, lest you continue to oppress them like the despicable Nazi Germany, which you mentioned. Also, it is very vainglorious of anyone to assume, or even subtly imply, that people who are not stalwart followers of a determined religion have no sense of “these morals” that “help us to make judgments in every life as a citizen.” It is condescends against those who have chosen the religion of believing in no religion.

Second, with regards to Canada, I, once again, fail to see your resonating point; however, I will reiterate that people pushing for the rescinding of proposition 8 are not saying that their next target are religious figures who speak ill of them at the pulpit every Sunday; this, even the most levelheaded person, would concede as being the right of the pastor or priest of the church: to speak according to their interpreted beliefs of their holy book, or based on the catechisms of their structured religion/denomination.

Third, I don’t understand how you deviate from the desire of gays to make marriage legal for all couples, discriminating no one, to E-harmomny and your unquestionable love for bacon , but I will address it nevertheless. You wrongfully attempt to equate the Arab man refusing to sell you pork and the government not providing gay marriage for homosexuals. The Arab man, as a distributor and Islam practitioner, whose religion places stigmas on pigs, has the legal right to pick what it is he will sell to his consumers, as well as refuse service to ANYONE he wishes; although his refusal to serve a particular group of people or serve a genre of food, due to his religions beliefs, may not necessarily bring him many customers and may leave him open to being sued, it is his right under the law to do so. The government on the other hand, because it is ideally supposed to be unbiased in all areas, including religion (separation of church and state), race, creed, and sexual preference, does not have the same right to make marriage an exclusive privilege for heterosexuals on the grounds that some people perceive this action as right because their religion tells them it is; this is both deplorable and unacceptable. E-Harmony, with its exclusive services for heterosexuals, could very well be forced to defend itself in court against a homosexual, who thinks they should extend their services to the gay community, but this once again misses my main point that a business is self-governing. This means it can determine for itself what it will or will not do, or who it will or will not serve. The government does not have this right; they must be fair to all.

Fourth, on your last paragraph, which begins, “the opposition to homosexual marriage is not an opposition to the idea of the universality of love, but a rejection of the idea that the state, and by extension, society must validate every loving relationship as equal,” you say you aren’t advocating a slippery slope argument but you succeed solely in adding another one to the already abundant array pervasive in all gay marriage debates. You essentially speculate that, by legalizing their right to wed, we would therefore give leeway to polygamous relationships. But this is a misleading hypothesis. One, no one needs religion or any prevalent predispositions to reason that a polygamous relationship obscures “love” and hinders the very foundation of a two person relationship. I’m not one to debate the philosophical notion of love, but it can be agreed by most reasoning people that that is not what marriage is about. To have more than one spouse, thereby having sexual relationships with more than one person at a time, stifles the concepts of trust and fidelity: concepts that are the corner stone of marriage. And two, the ramifications of sanctioning polygamy puts a economic burden on the government to provide for multiple spouses and family members, who have no inherent right to be included under the marriage laws. Polygamy, your greatest endeavor at illustrating the slippery slope argument, fails to encompass what marriage is supposed to be about: the universal notion of relationship love upheld by trust, dependability, and fidelity, encased in the mutuality of two individuals. Yes, you can love more than one person in your family. But no, you do not love the person, who you would have be one of many spouses of yours, or vice versa. This is not love; it is a complete and utter distortion of it. It is this unfortunate misrepresentation, along with the “refusal of the validation of those (rights) it finds counter to grander ideals,” what continues to inculcate tenuous reasons for oppressing their fellow man, into the minds of mainstream America.

“The fact is that very few Americans are really concerned with who is living with whom and what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Honestly, we cringe when thinking about our parents dalliances; we are not spending time conjuring up visions of our neighbors. What people are concerned with is what behavior government sanctions in their name.

The opposition to homosexual marriage is not an opposition to the idea of the universality of love, but a rejection of the idea that the state, and by extension, society must validate every loving relationship as equal.

If marriage is simply about coupling-sex and love and nothing more-then upon what basis would California or any other state deny “marriage equality” to those that favor polygamous relationships? Understand that I am not of the opinion that homosexual marriage will lead us down the slippery slope to bestiality or child abuse. However, I do think it a fair question to ask those demanding “marriage equality” what their rationale is for refusing state sanction of those lifestyles even they disagree with. Why do the same romantic arguments not apply to those wishing to marry multiple partners? Does anyone seriously contend that human beings are incapable of loving more than one person at a time? We have already decided that the actual makeup of the family unit is unimportant so why not have three parents? Certainly children will benefit from three times as much love and attention. Or do we reject such arguments because we recognize that ultimately the institution of marriage must be about more than love and more than equal access to government benefits. And then, can’t we finally agree that society has a right, even a duty, to recognize the differences in certain human relationships and refuse validation of those it finds counter to its grander ideals?” -Joseph Phillips

As to what is going on in Canada, google this phrase because I can not export the source from the Universities database
“Rein in rights commissions on speech law, but don’t disband them; The overzealous commissions should be controlled by changing law”

As for businesses who get sued because they don’t equalize homosexuality on the basis of not providing services for them or because of religious beliefs, check out E-harmony or Certain adoption services that are highly christian.

As e-harmony goes, they do not provide “women seeking women” or “man seeking man” section, therefore they are seen as discriminatory. BUT they just don’t provide a service, how is that discriminatory? There are certain women gyms like “Lucille roberts” that are all women, are they discriminating men or do they just provide a service only for women? Like i said before about the deli, are they discriminating my love for bacon?