Canada's Mistakes: Toppling Down Freedom of Speech

I am not comfortable with same-sex marriage, yet I am not certain that it should be outlawed. My misgivings about same-sex marriage are religious in nature, and I am not sure that a secular government should be governed by any particular religion, particularly not in a country where all religions are accepted, as well as no religion at all. Although I suppose that arguments could be made about nature, most of the prohibitions to same-sex relationships are religious in nature. Still, this can be said about many of our laws, including those prohibiting theft and murder. My own views about whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed are conflicted. When it came up for a vote in Maine, I voted against it because I have as much of a right to vote in accordance with my beliefs as anyone else.

However, one thing that I am not at all conflicted about is that if some may enjoy the privilege of believing that sexual relationships between two people of the same sex is okay, then others should also have the right to believe differently, and they should have the same right to express their opinions and to act upon their own conscience. I could agree, although hesitantly, that government should not prohibit same-sex marriage, but only if people are allowed the right to hold opinions in opposition. Civil servants are employees of a secular government and, as such, they should be required to issue marriage licenses as allowed by law, whatever that law may be. Pastors or priests should not be required to violate the tenets of their religion or of their conscience. Surely, there are churches where people of the same sex would be welcome, and pastors and priests who would willing perform their wedding ceremonies if they prefer a church wedding, so no one is being denied even a church wedding. To insist that those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, and who take the Bible's prohibition of homosexuality seriously, nevertheless be required to perform such ceremonies is an egregious violation of religious liberties and personal freedom. Worse, the sole purpose of such a requirement is to place one person's rights over that of another, and it is an attack on religion in general, because if government can dictate which beliefs are allowable, then the portions of Scripture that will remain allowable will be the word of government rather than the word of God.

 

I think that there is actually more involved here than just the religious values; although I think that is definitely a large part of it. However, since time immemorial, a marriage has been considered to be a union between a man and a women, whether done by a religious people or not.

Homosexual relations existed; but no one considered it to be a marriage of any kind. Even in primitive people; I doubt that you would find same-sex partners accorded the same status as heterosexual partners.
Animals mate heterosexually, and while you might see to same-sex animals appearing to mate; it is basically a dominance maneuver, and not a mating ritual. There is no animal that has a homosexual preference; so even nature itself shows us that mating should be heterosexual.
That being said, we are humans, and can make choices in such matters. If that is someone's choice in life, then I feel that I have no right to object to it based on my personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.
For years, people who just lived together have not been able to have the same benefits as those who were legally married. If same-sex couples want to be legally married so they can have these same rights; I see no problem with that.
I just wish that it did not have to be such a much-protested issue. Just do what you want and don't make a big deal of it. Straight people do not go around wearing buttons or having parades just to show their sexual preferences; so why should gay people feel the need to do that ? ?