My definition of marriage exceeds all man-made dictionaries, for it has it origins and meaning from God's word. God is the one Who created marriage in the first place, not "consensual adults". He created man and woman for each other. Any other union is against the nature of humanity. For centuries, the word "marriage" has always meant a bond between a man and a woman. Because we live in an immoral culture today, the meaning of marriage has been spoiled and smuggled in by homosexual apologists to mean a union between two men or two women.
You say that God's definition of marriage will not meet your specific needs, but that's really the point here.
It's not about your specific needs, nor is it about my own. Once again, we are talking about truth, not opinion, and the truth of the matter is gays should not be married by any means whatsoever because it is expressly forbidden by God in His word. You may not believe God's word is true, but it remains true no matter what your beliefs are, my friend.
Agreed.
You may not consider it your business, but it is mine. It affects me because it affects my God. It is offensive, and it goes against nature. I do not wish to have my children seeing gay couples together in public, just like I wouldn't have them seeing any other indecent act in public, such as nudity.
In addition to that, it concerns me because there are some in the homosexual community who are using the State to impose their values upon dissenters like myself. If one doesn't support "gay marriage", then that person can be considered guilty under discrimination laws. People can lose their jobs or go to court for not supporting gay lifestyles in their business or in public. That needs to stop, and it is an infringement upon the principles of liberty that you claim to hold to. Gays are quite capable and comfortable in using the State to support their so-called "gay rights", even in support of gay marriage.
Actually, we do have laws which protect against offensive behavior, such as nudity or sex in public places. Indecent behavior should be policed by local communities and governments, and, yes, I would add gay unions as indecent behavior.
I answered that question in the next sentence by stating that God (not civil government) has the power to dictate who can and can't get married. I believe in separation of Church and State, which is why the government shouldn't be concerned about religious affairs like marriage. That belongs to the Church as the stewards of God's word.
This is not a subjective opinion, bro. It's funny how you think you, being the finite human being you are, are in any position to judge the Creator of the universe for what He does in His own creation. I guess you don't believe in property rights, O lover of liberty.
I don't believe the civil government should be involved with legalizing gay marriage. As a matter of fact, they should never support any immoral civil union or contract. For example, if two people decided to eat each other until one died, that would be a contract which the government should consider null and void because it entails murder. In similar manner, gay marriage should not be enforced contractually by the government because it is unlawful sexual behavior between two human beings.
"Liberty is nothing more than freedom (without restraint)"? With that sort of definition, you leave it wide open to condone any kind of behavior. By your definition, rapists should have the liberty to rape anyone they wish without restraint. After all, it doesn't affect you if they rape someone you don't know. Murderers should kill whomever they deem worthy of death without restraint. Your moral that murder is wrong "has no place" in the life of the murderer. Who are you to tell him he's wrong? By you being arbitrary in defining what "liberty" is, you actually undermine the very mechanism for liberty to work in a civil society.
You tell me that I shouldn't "force my morals on people", but that statement itself is an imposition of morality upon myself, coming from you! It's okay for you to tell me what I should and should not be doing, but if I do the same towards other people, then that makes me wrong? Do you see the double standard there?
Also, if the civil government supports "gay rights" in any capacity, I would say that it is already condoning immorality, and that is not compatible with liberty. Once again, I agree with you that marriage should not be an issue for the civil magistrates to define, but when they implicitly support it in the name of upholding "gay rights" and "equal protection under the law," they have gotten themselves involved. If that is the case, it needs to be brought to their attention what their only involvement should be in gay unions, and it should be capital punishment (though I believe our weak justice system will not allow such a thing to occur anyway). We don't even give the death penalty to murderers that rightfully deserve it as a restitution to the rights of the victim murdered.
.
