Originally Posted by opie
I get what you are after...
The issue I have, being a strict Constitutionalist, is we have freedom of religion. That means just because your religion doesn't recognize homosexual marriage does not mean it should be applied equally to everyone else. A homosexual couple may have a different relationship with their creator and should not be denied any right or privilege guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, because of how you interpret your religion.
In typing what I just typed, I can see the difference between a civil union and a marriage. Ive no issue with homosexual marriage or civil union, just as long as they are afforded the same privileges as heterosexual unions/marriages. By Cain suggesting that the act/relationship is a choice opens the door to American Citizens being denied some of the most basic rights granted to them by our founding documents.
I see it as someone asking to be defined as something they are not. It's like a Dog asking to be a goose. The Dog doesn't have wings or feathers so it can't be called a goose. If the Dog feels that it deserves the same rights as the goose then the Government should do something to allow that Dog to have those rights. But it's still not a goose. What's wrong with changing the rights that the Goose gets to something different instead of redefining what a goose is?