[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Alright, let me try to understand your logic. If the majority of people believe a certain minority should have certain rights restricted, that is perfectly acceptable. Screw you minority, majority has spoken. Let me offer this similar scenario:

A group of people sincerely believe Christianity should be banned. They think it's a horribly outdated religion and that its insistence on imposing its beliefs into secular law needs to be curbed. They put it to a referendum, and the majority votes in favour. Christians religion will only be allowed within the home and within approved church buildings. Mention of religion in any other place is unlawful.

They have the right to vote for this, yeah? The supporters sincerely believe Christians shouldn't practice their beliefs, and Christians have no right to tell them to vote otherwise. Because that would be violating the rights of the anti-Christian supporters to believe whatever they want to.

I have the right to think Christianity should be banned, I have the right to think whatever I want about Christianity - are you honestly going to argue that I have the right to pass a law about it? I'm guessing you would object to an anti-Christian law, so why should Christians be able to vote to restrict the rights of homosexuals?

This is, again, what I mean. Neither side can truly win, if this were the current situation. Christianity would be voted both for and against. If the majority of the vote were that Christianity should remain legal, those against Christianity would be rather pissed, and Christianity, though it had won, would still be discriminated against (this would represent the homosexual side winning the vote). However, if Christianity were to be outlawed, Christians would of course be angry, and the anti-Christians would then be discriminated against (this would represent the side of the argument that those against gay marriage are on). So like I said, neither side is going to win. There are always going to be people who are ticked off at the outcome of the vote.

So to decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal, both sides of the argument need to be considered and understood, not just one. You can shout and boo down Christians all you want, and Christians can do the same to the gays, but they are not coming to an understanding or agreement that way. Both opinions should be considered in order to reach a conclusion that will settle with everyone involved. What that agreement could be, I have no idea. But nothing, absolutely nothing, is solved by failure to try to understand the other side of the debate. I may be an idiot and this may not be how the voting system or whatever works, but compromise is the way to keep things moving along smoothly, and I personally do not believe that "majority rules."