I think there are people who decide to get married in church because that's what you do or it's a nice building or Mom wants us to get married at St. Stephen's, while missing the larger spiritual connotation. It's not a judgment call on anyone; I was simply pointing out that there is a religious connection (whether real or implied, intentional or not) by choosing to be married in a church.
To be fair to Nathan, this is how I interpreted that part of his post, too.
For me, the primary issues underlying this debate are principles. How do we, as a secular nation, follow through on our commitment to the principle that all men are created equal, and subject to equal representation under the law? And how do we, as a secular nation, provide for the safe, free practice of all religious people? And how do we hold both those principles true at the same time, without sacrificing either, particularly when the government has muddied the water by gotten into the business of blessing marriage (a religious institution)?
See, this is why we need to make a decision across the board right now: Either we call all non-religious unions, gay AND straight, civil unions, and leave the marriage stuff to the church. Or if the government recognizes straight marriages as such, whether they're religious in nature or not, then we do the same for gay couples. We can't keep on having one labeled one thing and the other labeled something else.
Each church has the right to decide whom it will and will not accept, whose marriages it will and will not recognize. That's a personal thing, if I don't agree with the church I'm free to leave and find another one.
But the government shouldn't be in the business of discriminating like that.
The liberals on this forum are so aggressively insulting and dismissive against anyone that doesn't share their ideological viewpoint that I'm almost tempted to re-examine my pro-gay marriage stance.
I agree that sometimes the left can be really aggressive about certain things, but on this issue, can you blame us? No, I wouldn't say that everyone who's against gay marriage "hates" gay people, so to speak. I think some of the opposition is borne out of lack of proper understanding. Again, I refer to my grandparents here and the comparison to blacks and interracial marriage. They were disgusted by the KKK and groups of that ilk. They never threatened black people. But that doesn't mean their views were any less questionable. My maternal grandmother was known to say a woman was "pretty for a black girl". And she opposed interracial marriage because of "what it'd do to the children". My paternal grandmother went around closing the blinds one day when my dad brought home a black friend from school. Thankfully, my parents rejected those mindsets.
And as has been noted many, many times here, some people oppose gay marriage because they're opposed to marriage across the board. Some gay people don't support gay marriage, for their own set of reasons.
But for those who are supportive of marriage EXCEPT when it includes gay people, you may not hate gay people, but I can't figure out what other reason there would be for your opposition than some sort of unsettled reaction against homosexuality and all that goes with it.
If it's not the fact that they're gay, then what is it? All the arguments that have been brought up against gay marriage have been shot down time and time again. So pardon us for getting frustrated-we've seen gay people get married in many places in recent years and none of the horrible things that supposedly were going to happen should gay marriage be legal have happened. Life's gone on about as good or bad as it did before.
So what are people still so worried about? WHY do people think they have the right to dictate and govern other people's love lives? I have asked the second question quite a few times in this thread and the last one recently and I still have yet to receive an answer, or at least, one that makes any sort of sense. We feel like we're going in circles on an issue that should've been done and decided a long time ago.
Besides that, listen to Irvine on this issue. I can't imagine how bizarre it'd be to sit here and listen to people make decisions about my personal life for me based on how it makes
them feel. Who cares about what you think? Who cares about what I think? How about focusing on what Irvine and others like him think for once? He's the one who's the most directly affected by all this nonsense.
I like to believe I'm usually pretty good at looking at the other side of an issue and trying to understand where they're coming from. I'm pro-choice, but I certainly do understand where the pro-life side comes from. I'm anti-death penalty, but again, when I hear of a horrific sicko's crimes, I get the anger and the "to hell with him" attitude. I despise guns, but I also am aware that people do know how to be responsible with them, and don't think it's fair to punish them for what a nutcase does.
But this is perhaps the one issue I just cannot understand the other side of. There's nothing about being against gay marriage that I can make sense of. They're not bothering anyone. They're in love. They're of legal age. They're consenting.
Leave them alone.
Perhaps one of the reasons why America doesn't have gay marriage yet is that some of its advocates present their arguments in such an unappealing manner. Some of their advocacy seems at times to be almost designed to alienate Middle America.
Middle American right here.