(continuation)
Finally, pedophiles will argue that they are an oppressed minority who deserve the right to pursue happiness by having sex with or getting married to children who have mutual, consensual feelings. After all, who are we to deny them that right or impose our morals on them?

Is that really the kind of precedent you want to set??? I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think so. No one is committing any acts of hate by saying homosexuals cannot change the definition of marriage. Nor is anyone affording them any less love, compassion, or friendship. No one is attempting to enact legislation that throws homosexuals in jail. On the other hand, many homosexuals have committed many hate crimes recently against those that do not subscribe to their views and voted for Prop. 8. Need examples? Mormons (just off the top of my head). Need I say more? Once again, talk about irony!

(continuation)
Next, religious leaders will be forced by the government to marry gay couples in their synagogues. The government will censure religious organizations altogether from teaching that homosexuality is wrong. Books expressing the opinion that homosexuality is wrong will be censored. Religious freedom as we know it will disappear. Religions will be told by the government what they can and can't believe or risk punishment. Conspiracy theory? There are already real examples of things heading in that direction. See the NPR story entitled "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash".

cmiklich's posts are soooo valid. We do not want to experiment with our society by changing the definition of marriage. Gays and lesbians are wanting to force the public to condone their behavior as being normal and appropriate. This will set a precedent which will unavoidably force church and state to combine. In other states that have already allowed gay marriage, religiously affiliated adoption agencies have been forced to allow homosexual couples to apply or be shut down. Religiously affiliated schools have already been forced to allow homosexual couples to reside in their dorms. Public schools have been forced to tell stories about 2 princes getting married to each other.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor...

First, you want to change the definition of marriage. Now, you want to change the definition of love and compassion to include condoning inappropriate behavior. As someone else pointed out, Jesus did not condone the behavior of the adulteress. He exercised compassion by saving her from the mob, but then encouraged her to correct her behavior in the future. Jesus may have hung out with the vilest of sinners, but never while they were in the act of their sins. He always encouraged them to repent of their sins.

I am in no way perfect, but I'm not going to create legislation forcing the public to accept or embrace my faults as appropriate behavior in order to excuse myself.

Once again with the name calling.... Does a mother hate her child when she punishes him for running out into the street before looking both ways? Or, when she punishes him for hitting his sister? On the contrary, it would show a lack of love not to teach her child that such behavior is unacceptable.

Just because an organization views homosexuality as a sin doesn't mean they hate the individuals practicing such behavior. You, on the other hand, seem to hate those that believe that it is a sin just on the mere fact that they hold such a view. Believing homosexuality is a sin does not constitute "bashing". Your comments, on the other hand, do constitute bashing. Talk about irony...

Slavelife, why is polygamy rightfully a crime??? This is definitely ON topic. Are you assuming that all polygamist arrangements are against someone's will? I'm sure there are plenty of people who enjoy a Ménage à trois. What if those people decide they want to commit to each other as a threesome and want the same rights as any other married couple? I don't think they would appreciate you declaring that they are committing a crime. After all, what have they ever done to you??? (Isn't that your own argument?) What if several women want to be married to one man? What if it is in fact consensual? They aren't hurting anybody else by their relationship, are they? Why are you going to deny them the same right to liberty, freedom, and happiness that you want? Have you ever tried NOT being a bigot yourself??? I don't think I've seen a single one of your posts that hasn't included name calling. The people you think you represent should be proud, I'm sure. Talk about "crap" logic.