I fail to see the faulty logic or really why any logical argument needs to be made. You are quite blatantly stating that what you believe to be right supersedes what someone else believes to be right. That you would enforce your statements, your values and your belief is imposing your ideology onto another group of people that feel differently. So you do not feel that imposing your values, ideas and beliefs onto another group is wrong. You just don’t want them imposing those things on you.
If you want to stretch the term ideology, then yes; I like to think that my 'ideology' that people should be able to do something natural, and have the same rights as everyone else is superior to making entire groups of people second class citizens who deserve scorn and inequality because a group of people, rather than using any real, legitimate reason to state why homosexuality/inter-racial/whatever marriage, and insted point to one vague translated sentence from a book written two thousand years ago, addressing the problems of people two thousand years ago. It also brings into question their bigotry; why is homosexual marriage still wrong, and stoning women for not being virgins in marriage now accepted? If the beliefs can suddenly change there, why does -this- 'problem' stick? That's when you start using theological 'evidence', the only 'evidence' that supports the claim said person believes, to shunt the blame of their ignorance and intolerance ('Oh, -I- don't have a problem with gay people having a piece of paper that says they'd just like you or me. But my God does, and there's nothing I can do about that. No offence!')
The point here is, as I say, not gay marriage. This isn't me declaring my opinions on gay marriage and such, because this isn't the thread for that. Gay marriage just happens to be, in my opinion, one of the perfect examples of why religion and theocracy does not work as a good basis for political decisions. Something such as capital punishment is far more grey, whereas gay marriage is far more black and white; there is no reason for it to be vilified outside of religious belief. So why would homosexuals being married, when you yourself are not a homosexual, affect you? If it's a claim that 'God says it's wrong', well, they're already sinning. Why would a piece of paper saying the State acknowledges that they're sinning with each other change that? Unless your arguement is 'I don't believe homosexuals should pay less tax', which is just as non-sensical, but at least not theistically motivated.
So yes, that pretty much sums up my opinion on that. If a theology states homosexuality is wrong, and you already tolerate homosexuals, why would them getting non-religious (or religious services within a different religion/denomination/church) acknowledgement of their commitment suddenly make their relationship that much more offensive that it's better for the country to stop them doing so?
Of course not, she's presenting a caricature.
Regardless, presenting an ideology as 'anything forced upon you' is not a useful definition. Is a woman defending herself against a rapist imposing her ideology? A minority defending themselves from abuse?
We accord and grant people certain rights by virtue of being born, rights which presumably grow until they are of a certain age, and give a certain moral weight to their right of self-determination. How far that should extend, exactly, can be a matter of debate, in terms of what externalities may be imposed on society as a whole and such.
And sometimes movements intent on fighting discrimination do form ideologies (militant feminism and militant atheism both end up ranking pretty high on the authoritarian scale). But these groups end up crossing clear lines in terms of what they wish to impose or see imposed, for no other reason than the simple existence of men (gender or sex, depending) or religions offends them.
It is a rather extreme notion; by this logic, a doctor is forcing his ideology onto you when he says that antibiotics are the only way to cure your chest infection or, exactly as stated, the rape example.
If the idea is that 'The Democracy knows what's best, and what the majority wants is right', then you set up a terrible precident. It's well and good to argue that if you're in a first world country, such as America or UK, but what about say, a woman going to a place where women are still seen as second class citizens? Is it offensive to someone's religion or them if you refuse to be treated as such? Is it another persons right to force you to do something? If someone demanded in the street that you give them £20, because women are inferior, would you just hand it over and accept that it's wrong to offend their view of women and your place?
Once again, in this case, there is no 'forcing' of anything. Legalising homosexual marriage, in no way, forces -you- to accept gay marriage in any way. It does not force you to believe it's right. You are still allowed to believe what you believe. If you're a pastor, you are still free to say your church doesn't believe in gay marriage, and direct them to a church which does perform that. Telling people they're inferior and that they don't -deserve- marriage by virtue of being born is offensive.