From: Westbrick | #147
Well... yeah, obviously. I'm not sure what significance "other moral systems exist" has.
Acknowledgment of the fact that other belief systems exist, obviously. Hence why you can't really argue about the definition of marriage from a Christian perspective without having to also argue that Christianity should also be able to dictate morality over all other objections, since both require you to give priority to their beliefs.
...is not. Christians can and do feel harm at having state-sponsored legislation against an institution with which they attach such importance. This is, again, an undeniable fact.
Well that's basically just their problem. If someone has a belief system that is intolerant enough to consider it harmful for society to not be built around it, it really can't be given any more respect than "okay, believe it all you want but we're not forcing it on everyone else for you". If they feel that other people being allowed to do similar things to what they do is unacceptable, then compromise is impossible anyway.
This is the big problem with your position: you're making the non-religious position into some kind of default position. That's not the case. The state has to stake some value claim on social issues, whether it be religious or otherwise.
It is the default position, because it's the one that ends up allowing for the inclusion of the most other positions. If the non-religious position is accepted, then religious groups are still allowed to view marriage their own way and only assign meaning to marriages that fit their definition. If the religious position is accepted, then everyone outside of their faith is *not* allowed to act on their own beliefs. It's pretty clear that the state should pick the side where the downside is one group not being able to make other people do what they want instead of the one where the downside is all other groups being forced to do what other people want.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.