When the state (the issuer of marriage licenses, not the church) says, "No," to a homosexual couple for no compelling reason other than Xians claim that it violates their "morals" (which aren't actually moral) then yes, the state is pushing the "morals" of Xians on others.

Consider the following scenarios, which are very likely playing out right now somewhere in the U.S.

1. A divorced man and his fiancee ask the priest of their Catholic church to marry them. The priest replies, "I'm sorry, but according to the tenets of our church, you cannot be married in the sight of God. You are asking me to condone sin." The couple then goes to the church down the road, where the minister is happy to marry them. At the end of the ceremony, the couple gets the exact same piece of paper they would have gotten at the end of the Catholic ceremony, except with the minister's signature instead of the priest's.

Is anyone's morality being forced on anyone else in this scenario?

2. Two people of the same sex want to get married. The priest says "No dice." The minister says "I would love to celebrate your marriage in our church, but I must warn you that I am not allowed to sign the paper that says you are legally married." (or "I must warn you that pending legislation may invalidate the piece of paper I sign after the ceremony.")

Is anyone's morality being forced on anyone else in this scenario?

3. Scenario 2 again, but this time, the minister gets to sign the paper for the same sex couple.

Is anyone's morality being forced on anyone else in this scenario? If your answer to #1 is different than #3, why?

If it is a matter of morality, the questions becomes who determines what is morally correct. For most Christians that is God, for many athiests it is self.

Whoa, there, rennis! The source of what is morally correct for every Christian, and that includes you, is also SELF. You alone wade through all the contradictory laws, commandments, and traditions derived from the many books of the Bible, contemplate all you have learned from your family, teachers, and pastors, and what you have figured out for yourself, and then live life as you see fit.

You can justify almost any position based on the Bible and its surrounding traditions -- otherwise, why would there be so many Christian denominations, with starkly contrasting views (on the matter of same-sex marriage, for example)?

And let's not forget what Jesus himself said about homosexuality and same-sex marriage: "_________________."

When you study the record of history and examine many of the practices of the past that are considered immoral today, a common thread is that nearly all of them were defended in their time by appeals to God's will. For instance, when the Confederacy seceded over its right to keep slaves, that practice was defended by appealing to Christianity and the Bible. The Confederate vice president, Alexander Stephens, said in his famous "Cornerstone Speech":

With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system... It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory."

When Jim Crow and segregation was the law of the land in the South a generation later, that, too, was defended by appealing to Christianity and the Bible. When he ruled that the interracial couple Richard and Mildred Loving were guilty of breaking Virginia's anti-miscegenation law, Judge Leon Bazile said:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

And when women were fighting for the right to vote, yes, their opponents also defended themselves by appealing to Christianity and the Bible. The suffrage leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton said:

In the early days of woman-suffrage agitation, I saw that the greatest obstacle we had to overcome was the Bible. It was hurled at us on every side.

Nowadays, modern Christians recognize that the positions of their predecessors were irrational, prejudiced and cruel, yet they're still using the Bible in support of today's bigotries. This tactic does not have an enviable success rate. What makes Rennis and those like him so sure that this time they have it right when every previous generation of Christian bigots thought the same thing?

While you support homosexual activity and marriage as moral; there may be other areas that would would consider to be immoral and would not support such as pedophilia or beastiality.

I was happy just watching this debate go by, but I can't let that pass without comment. At the risk of paraphrasing OMGF and Ebon, I fail to see how you can see this as an equivalent analogy to...

Sure, it is my belief that voting is an institution for men. I do not hold that belief in order to "be mean" to anyone and I certaintly do not hate women. In fact, one of the most inspirational teachers one of my children had going through school was a woman....

In the former you are equating Homosexuals to predatory and sexually exploitative pedophiles, whilst OMGF was quite reasonably comparing them to a similarly socially disadvantaged group (women). You are doing both yourself and your Christian beliefs a gross disservice by failing to acknowledge how insulting this is to homosexuals, who are no more likely to be into pedophilia or bestiality than the average heterosexual. I too see innate bigotry in the casual way you make this connection.
On the general marriage equality issue, your quarrel with it is NOT a moral one, it is a religious and doctrinal one which should have no bearing on the legal status of couples, same sex or otherwise, who wish to marry.
I will try to offer another analogy from the other perspective and as it happens a personal one. My fiancee and I will marry next year, we are a heterosexual couple (which I am sure you will approve of)so there is no legal bar to us being married in the UK or anywhere as far as I know. However there are a few people who are "morally" outraged by our marriage and would prevent it if possible. Why? because she is 20 and I am 51.The bible is awash with age-gap marriages so no moral imperative to object there yet a significant number of people who meet us, but don't know us well* are uncomfortable with the relationship. I say all this merely to ask then, should this prejudiced group of people be allowed to lobby my government to legislate against (large)age-gap marriages, just because it doesn't suit their world view or should two consenting adults be allowed to organise our lives anyway we wish so long as others are not harmed? If not, why should christians be allowed to lobby government to ban same sex marriage by the same criteria?

*you will I hope be pleased to know that close friends and family are not amongs our critics.

I did not compare or equate.

Um, yeah, you did.

I would have hoped that you would also see that same reasoning in my post.

I did not and still don't. I stated the reasons in my last comment. I don't think it's an accident or coincidence that you chose pedophilia and bestiality, since those are often linked by the anti-gay bigots on your side.

As far as addressing the topic of insults, that usually is why I post. I just feel that it is possible to debate based on reasoning and argument without the insults. I also understand that you are unwilling or unable to see the insults or you are unwilling to acknowledge when they are present.

And I understand that when asked, you will continually assert that they are there but spectacularly fail to back it up. Thank you for once again affirming that. The fact of the matter is that these debates are about reasoning and logic and the only "insults" that happen (for the most part) are the ones that you imagine and try to accuse us of making. Why do you make accusations that you can't and won't defend?

I did not compare or equate. It was a parallel such as your belief that only men should vote. "What if I were to say to you: "Sure, it is my belief that voting is an institution for men." ...Comment #40 by: OMGF | September 28, 2009, 10:25 am

Now it is obvious from the context of your post that you clearly do not hold such a position. You were merely citing an example with which I would agree with you in order to scaffold your reasoning to the position in which we disagree. I would have hoped that you would also see that same reasoning in my post. Obviously you were unable or unwilling to see that, so I regret having attempted to use such an outlandish parallel. I should have parenthetically stated that as such. I thought you would have picked up on that. For that I apologize.

As far as staying on topic, this would apply to all who did not strictly address gay marriage. As far as addressing the topic of insults, that usually is why I post. I just feel that it is possible to debate based on reasoning and argument without the insults. I also understand that you are unwilling or unable to see the insults or you are unwilling to acknowledge when they are present. I just think it is possible to have a civli discourse without them. XPK would be an example.

It would simply be an exercise in futility...

Why you gotta drag Tommykey into this? He hasn't even posted on this topic.

You may in those cases be inclined to deny the same civil rights in those cases.

I would only deny civil rights if we have a rational reason to do so. I think it's telling that you would compare homosexuality to bestiality, but there is a rational reason not to allow bestiality (besides things like syphilis) and that is that animals can't give consent, so the act would not be between two consenting partners. We don't allow pedophilia for the same reason, that pedophilia is a predatory type of behavior and children are really not in a position to give informed consent.

Now, I suggest that you try to stay on topic and not try to compare homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality, because it simply makes you look even more bigotted.

XPK- I did not defend the Bible to you for one reason. Since you reject the Bible you would also reject any defense given for it. It would simply be an exercise in futility on my part. It would be as though we were speaking two different languages. I do think other contributers to this site could learn from your posts... you challenge, disagree, and make counter arguments without the need to sink to insults and name calling. You allow your intellect and logic to speak for you.

"Sure, it is my belief that voting is an institution for men. I do not hold that belief in order to "be mean" to anyone and I certaintly do not hate women. In fact, one of the most inspirational teachers one of my children had going through school was a woman....

Fantastic, OMGF. This makes the point superbly clear.

Too many people, especially religious fundamentalists, conceive of bigotry exclusively in terms of open hate and violence: Fred Phelps screaming at funerals, Southern sheriffs unleashing dogs and water hoses on peaceful marchers, lynchings and cross-burnings by the KKK. This soothes their conscience by allowing them to convince themselves that since they're being civil and peaceful, they can't possibly be prejudiced - an attitude Rennis has demonstrated to perfection in this thread.

Well, that's a self-justifying illusion we shouldn't permit to go unchallenged. Prejudice is prejudice, regardless of whether it's expressed with a smile or with soft words. And if you advocate denying someone their civil rights, if you're advocating unequal protection of the laws, then you are a bigot, regardless of how politely you express that viewpoint. And whether it's implicit or explicit, open or insidious, bigotry is just as morally unacceptable.

"Sure, it is my belief that voting is an institution for men. I do not hold that belief in order to "be mean" to anyone and I certaintly do not hate women. In fact, one of the most inspirational teachers one of my children had going through school was a woman....

Please note that those are your words and not mine. I would never tell a woman such a thing. If asked or if in the context of a conversation I was given the opportunity, I would love to share the issues with them, just as I would any other unintellectual person. I would agree with you from the standpoint that I would love and respect them as a person."

Can you spot the parallels? It's not such a far-fetched thing as arguments such as these were used to deny women the vote not too long ago in our nation's history. I think you'd agree that it was bigotted to deny women the vote, but you don't seem to think that it applies in your case in denying secular rights to gays?

Note to all: I don't support the views in the hypothetical quote that I have above, I'm just making an argument.

I understand now that Ebonuse and many others feel that insults and hatred toward Christians such as myself is a perfectly acceptable response. I am saddened and surprised but I understand.

Where has this happened? I'm saddened but not surprised that you would make accusations such as these against us.