Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Before you answer or debate anything I say, respond to these questions first. Without using any words like "but"Should everyone have rites and freedom to live with allegiance to their own conscience? Should parents have the rite and freedom to raise their children according to morals and values without interference from government and/or schools?If any law created breached these freedoms and rites, would that law be unconstitutional?It is irresponsible for Judges and law makers to pass a law, like Gay Marriage, without considering potential difficulties and consequences to society in the aftermath of the ruling and its total impact, the possible effects on all the other groups, in every demographics, businesses, schools, media content, children’s programing etc should be considered for the general welfare of all. No law should ever pass that will cause society as a whole to suffer, and conflict with a healthy balance of morality and religion, and the natural behavior of most.Our religious freedom can only protect us on an individual bases at best. There is little, if any, action we can take to keep it separated from our us and our children.By passing this, you all said, "parents have less rights , and no rites to raise children according to their own values and beliefs! States - New Religious Freedom Bill Gives Small Business Owners Right To Annul Any Gay MarriageI'm pretty sure they already had the rite to turn away gay marriage. Its all the heterosexuals in that age group who will side, and the business gets to suffer persecution for faith. As businesses particuarly wedding businesses are put in harms way by this Supreme Court ruling.Example:If we choose NOT to provide services for gay weddings, we may be taken to court. We will incur cost, lost time, and aggravation. AND, our businesses will most likely suffer damages by public opinion. Where as, before this law was passed, we reserved to run our business according to our own business model, and be true to ourselves, our integrity, and our own moral consciences.And by providing great service, treating our clients professionally, and delivering an excellent product, we could reasonably expect business growth and hopefully many referrals through word of mouth from happy customers. All while upholding our own values that we live by, our “privately” held positions had no need to be public, and were kept private unless shared by choice. BUT now, this law will shame you!Your once discretely held position is no longer a private matter, but instead has become a highly publicized position because of a ruling, that will inevitably damage your business!So then, whether you are signaled out and locally publicized, or nationally publicized, or even if asked in standard interview questions by couples who are comparing services, all of these scenarios are equally damaging.Heterosexual couples getting engaged, who were going to be your future clients through referrals, and because you established an excellent reputation will likely go elsewhere on a basis of personal moral values. And your personal value shouldn’t be forced into public scrutiny.Our businesses can suffer great damages, as future clients we depend on to support our business and our families go elsewhere in their support of gay marriage. So then was this law fair, and just, or Constitutional? What choice did the Supreme Court give to us who do not want an EQUAL presence of unnatural marriage with natural marriage? This is a crime against citizens! This is the choice the Supreme Court left wedding related business owners:Either - Lay down your religious freedom, your rite to personal privately held values, your rite to compete on merit of quality services, your own integrity of conscience, your morals, your political views and opinions,Or - Let whatever public scorning of your business just happen.our rites - we have every rite to choose either of these scenarios. Does this sound like rites to anyone? Is this what American religious freedom looks like?We should be free to give undisturbed allegiance to our faith, personal morality, and own conscience. And, without interference from government through enforcing laws that cause conflict of our allegiance to Law and Country AND allegiance to our own conscience. Law should never rule in favor of 1 set of beliefs over the religious beliefs of others. This is actually a breech of the establishment clause!One group is made up of gays and their supporters, they have a belief. They believe being Gay, or transgender or other unnatural sexual preferences or identity is a naturally occurring choice, and also may be caused by different arrangements of genes, hormones, brain chemicals, and other physical properties. Many also believe it’s God given. Being Gay is as much a belief of faith as Catholicism, or Presbyterianism.It’s a belief set of faith regarding origin of sexual preference, gender choice, AND above all it is a MORAL precept in response to a belief!It is believed by faith, and it is a value based morality and a community belief. It is a faith, since it is as much to question and debate and as difficult to prove as God and creation! And a community of faith is a Religion! Free to exercise yes of course but law of all against others beliefs, NO! I don't want gays forced into a closet, either. There is a balance. Anti gay marriage need to address a balance, regardless of personal beliefs. Religion can save and influence, but cant take control of society unfairly. And if we are reasonable in allowing a law of exception for this small group, that is the max measure, but not equal to marriage!And don’t allow law to use the term marriage in the law but civil union is fine. Let them use marriage as their own preference, but it shouldnt be called the same.Not only should it No Way be a law making it Equal, it shouldnt even be called marriage in the law, so there is no confusion that it is NOT the same!This law is unfair to all but gays! The key is not equal to marriage, by exception for benefits of life partnership like inheritance, survivorship benefits, health benefits, tax laws, etc. But absolutely NOT equality to Marriage. When society faced progress and some moral loosening, it wasn’t all bad. Overly strict moral codes are not the will of all, it may raise an eyebrow but shouldn’t turn the stomach and sour pursed lips. When Elvis made old ladies gasp with his shaking leg, and hip thrusts, even if shocking, it still was palatable, it didn’t go against our natural inclinations, it was exciting and relatable because it felt natural even if not moral. It was compatible to the inner wild girl inside an 80 year old women. BUT, Gay Expression and Gay Marriage, isn’t relatable, nor compatible, its offensive to the core of most of our natures who are hetefosexual. So they forced something on us that IS NOT compatible to society. Live and let live, but it’s a private agreement with law, NOT a public agreement!Its ONLY palatable to gays, and supporters. So why is it forced into our entire culture? To the rest of society, people in every demographic group, Sr Citizens, families, varieties of religions, and even many secular people feel the insertion is an unwanted intrusion against our natural inclination.Forcing an unnatural lifestyle onto all other people who are living a natural life style is wrong!1 - Its Natural vs Un-Natural 2 - It is a Subject of Morality 3 - Its Often a Matter of Religious Freedom of Others 4 - It is Uncomfortable and Distateful to Most as a Whole I’m going to get a little honest, Sorry - its Actually Disgusting to Many 5 - Its Inappropriate to Age Groups Specifically Young Children and Sr Citizens 6 - Its inappropriate to Families.I cant see how this law could be unconstitutional 1 - its ruled in exclusive favor of 1 specific community, and 2 - it is a law that is a burden of moral conflict for others and 3 - that law is not foundational of basic natural laws, natural order, natural consequence and 4 – not established for the health and common good of all in society in general, or 5 – it will upset the balance of society and have a negative impact on the daily practices and enjoyment of all in general, or 5 – it does not offer reasonable protection and fairness for all citizens equally, or 6 – it takes away reasonable protection and fairness of any other group(s) of citizens, or 7- a law is individually and collectively being experienced with even further projections that are as an impediment to the pursuit of freedoms