Point at proof then as it is so supposedly frequent, you must have tons of proof.
You also then have a right to accept the consequences like hate speech laws cover hate speech
Amusing you ask for proof yet offered none yourself when claiming it wasn't. Anyway you miss my entire point, there shouldn't be laws that prohibit freedom of thought or speech unless it explicitly encouarge others to go out and break the law.
Why is it such a valid stance though? Often when questioned the ones with this attitude refuse to elaborate so it can hardly be valid
I think people should be able to believe whatever you want for whatever reason they want. However as the poster points out, it's interesting how some people centre in on this issue and fight tooth and claw to stop equality under the law for gay people and leave other things they disagree with well alone.
In many ways I'd prefer the government to get out of marriage altogether and institutions to do their own thing, but also, I do feel the need to combat illogical stance and injustice. If people want to view others as second class citizens that's their right to do so, but I'm personally not a type of character who can do that, whether we're talking due to their race, gender, sexuality, disability or whatever.
Amusing you ask for proof yet offered none yourself when claiming it wasn't. Anyway you miss my entire point, there shouldn't be laws that prohibit freedom of thought or speech unless it explicitly encouarge others to go out and break the law.
You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the proof - remember?
There's laws about speech to protect people like hate speech etc
You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the proof - remember?
There's laws about speech to protect people like hate speech etc
Well I already did but you ignored it, laws have been passed to restrict freedom of speech and people are often vilified for holding views that are not deemed correct by many.
There is an old saying about sticks and stones and words.
Amusing you ask for proof yet offered none yourself when claiming it wasn't. Anyway you miss my entire point, there shouldn't be laws that prohibit freedom of thought or speech unless it explicitly encouarge others to go out and break the law.
I agree, and we don't have laws like that. We have laws that stop people from inciting hatred - this seems perfectly reasonable to me. However no-one is using those laws to stop people opposing equal marriage.
What some people are doing is saying that others are homophobic for opposing it... and they have the right to say that too, even if others don't agree with them.
I think really, these issues come down to people seeing a particular group as "other than". Most people, when they actually have gay friends or know gay couples come to a greater understanding of the sameness that exists between them and not the differences. That people dedicate time to actively speaking out against a minorities desire for marriage equality just says me that they want their own world to be the wider world. If/when they are ever in a situation where they have a child, who turned out to be gay, and that child wishes to marry their partner who they love, what parent would go into a rant along the lines of "oh no, you shouldn't be able to get married". All of a sudden it would become real to them, and they would have to treat this as a real issue impacting the lives of real people and it becomes part of their world (since you know, it is actually part of the wider world).
It's easy to fall back on the "those queers/poofs" types of comments that so many of us heard as kids and that fuel our views, as if "it's odd" is any kind of reason to stop people marrying, or is in any way rational. The issue needs to become real for people to realise how misguided and unfair some of their ideas can be. Like any prejudice, in twenty years no-one will be talking about this as though it's an undecided issue. People will move on, hopefully to something that doesn't detract from the quality of peoples lives.
IWhat some people are doing is saying that others are homophobic for opposing it... and they have the right to say that too, even if others don't agree with them.
Good, then we should all move on and discuss why people oppose equal marriage rather than whether they have the right to, which we all agree they do.
My MP thinks it should be opposed because people will try and force churches to marry gay people. Seems to be the popular reason at the moment. I guess trying to shoe-horn religious freedom into what is actually a proposal for a change to civil laws may be their last bastion.
Well I already did but you ignored it, laws have been passed to restrict freedom of speech and people are often vilified for holding views that are not deemed correct by many.
There is an old saying about sticks and stones and words.
That saying is a lie used to belittle the power of words
By those who oppose the rights of others to say what they like.
Nah
it's just so stupid
Like how religions preach something and many follow that, that's one example of the power of words
Plus referring to people in derogatory terms hurts most people anyway
Good, then we should all move on and discuss why people oppose equal marriage rather than whether they have the right to, which we all agree they do.
My MP thinks it should be opposed because people will try and force churches to marry gay people. Seems to be the popular reason at the moment. I guess trying to shoe-horn religious freedom into what is actually a proposal for a change to civil laws may be their last bastion.
There are those who oppose homosexuality. There are those who oppose the state allowing homosexual couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which they now do in the UK.
The above have rightly lost the argument and the last issue is the use of the term marriage and churches right to refuse to marry homsexuals. If UK state civil partnerships are amended and the term marriage is used in them I don't see a problem with that but I don't support forcing those whose religious views prohibit this to accept they must carry out marriage ceremonies for homosexuals.
I'm not for or against gay marriage. It's not something that concerns me. If people vote in favour of it, fine, if they vote against it, fine. I don't think suddenly being able to refer to a gay relationship as a marriage rather than a civil partnership will change the minds of those against it, nor will gays being allowed to marry directly impact the lives of those opposed to it.
However, I do think there is a "social pressure" on those opposed to it, which I feel is wrong. First of all, being opposed to gay marrriage does not equate to being homophobic IMO. Throw your definitions of homophobia at me, it won't change my feelings. I think it's feasible that some people have no problem with gay relationships (therefore, not being homophobic), but they feel like marriage is something that should be kept apart. Whether that is right or wrong, is again a matter of opinion but labels of "homophobic" are misplaced in that situation.
Threatening people with those labels is intimidating. No, being opposed to gay marriage isn't a crime but there certainly is a social stigma to it, which shouldn't be there IMO. I've seen some people use the argument that people on Digital Spy and Twitter are airing their homophobic views, and that this discredits the argument that people are afraid to speak out. Two points. 1) Those comments are vulgar. They're not just opposed to gay marriage, which as I have stated isn't in itself homophobic IMO, they're showing hatred towards gay people which I certainly condemn. 2) Why do you think they have the confidence to do that? It's because they're anonymous on the Internet. I know some people from Twitter have been prosecuted, but the sheer amount of people posting those views means the chances of detection/identification are slim. I am confident that those people wouldn't say such things face to face with a gay person, or in general public view, because they'd be frightened of the reaction. Although the Twitter users are right to be frightened of the law, as their hatred is a crime (I assume?), people merely against gay marriage have similar fears.
There are those who oppose homosexuality. There are those who oppose the state allowing homosexual couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which they now do in the UK.
The above have rightly lost the argument and the last issue is the use of the term marriage and churches right to refuse to marry homsexuals. If UK state civil partnerships are amended and the term marriage is used in them I don't see a problem with that but I don't support forcing those whose religious views prohibit this to accept they must carry out marriage ceremonies for homosexuals.
The proposals from the government are clear - only civil marriage will be impacted by the change. And CPs will not be amended - the Marriage Act will be... to extend this to cover same-sex couples.
I don't accept forcing religious bodies to carry out same sex marriages either - and I don't know anyone involved in the campaign who does... because we support religious freedom as well as marriage equality.
This proposals currently however do discriminate against religions... the ones who want to marry gay people - but it seems that people keep forgetting this. My MP, when I raised it with him, didn't even bother to answer my questions about that, just kept banging on about how churches would be forced to marry gay people. It seems that in the minds of some, not only does some religion trump civil equality, it also trumps other religions.
I'm not for or against gay marriage. It's not something that concerns me. If people vote in favour of it, fine, if they vote against it, fine. I don't think suddenly being able to refer to a gay relationship as a marriage rather than a civil partnership will change the minds of those against it, nor will gays being allowed to marry directly impact the lives of those opposed to it.
However, I do think there is a "social pressure" on those opposed to it, which I feel is wrong. First of all, being opposed to gay marrriage does not equate to being homophobic IMO. Throw your definitions of homophobia at me, it won't change my feelings. I think it's feasible that some people have no problem with gay relationships (therefore, not being homophobic), but they feel like marriage is something that should be kept apart. Whether that is right or wrong, is again a matter of opinion but labels of "homophobic" are misplaced in that situation.
Threatening people with those labels is intimidating. No, being opposed to gay marriage isn't a crime but there certainly is a social stigma to it, which shouldn't be there IMO. I've seen some people use the argument that people on Digital Spy and Twitter are airing their homophobic views, and that this discredits the argument that people are afraid to speak out. Two points. 1) Those comments are vulgar. They're not just opposed to gay marriage, which as I have stated isn't in itself homophobic IMO, they're showing hatred towards gay people which I certainly condemn. 2) Why do you think they have the confidence to do that? It's because they're anonymous on the Internet. I know some people from Twitter have been prosecuted, but the sheer amount of people posting those views means the chances of detection/identification are slim. I am confident that those people wouldn't say such things face to face with a gay person, or in general public view, because they'd be frightened of the reaction. Although the Twitter users are right to be frightened of the law, as their hatred is a crime (I assume?), people merely against gay marriage have similar fears.
BIB - How can you have no problem with gay relationships but think they shouldn't be called 'marriage'? Would you say that people who opposed mixed-race couples marrying had no problem with mixed-race relationships?
There must be something they have a problem with, or they wouldn't oppose it.
I think really, these issues come down to people seeing a particular group as "other than". Most people, when they actually have gay friends or know gay couples come to a greater understanding of the sameness that exists between them and not the differences. That people dedicate time to actively speaking out against a minorities desire for marriage equality just says me that they want their own world to be the wider world. If/when they are ever in a situation where they have a child, who turned out to be gay, and that child wishes to marry their partner who they love, what parent would go into a rant along the lines of "oh no, you shouldn't be able to get married". All of a sudden it would become real to them, and they would have to treat this as a real issue impacting the lives of real people and it becomes part of their world (since you know, it is actually part of the wider world).
It's easy to fall back on the "those queers/poofs" types of comments that so many of us heard as kids and that fuel our views, as if "it's odd" is any kind of reason to stop people marrying, or is in any way rational. The issue needs to become real for people to realise how misguided and unfair some of their ideas can be. Like any prejudice, in twenty years no-one will be talking about this as though it's an undecided issue. People will move on, hopefully to something that doesn't detract from the quality of peoples lives.
I agree about the impact of having gay friends/family on some people's views. It does make it seem a more "real issue" for them, and if they decide to speak out for their friends/family, fair play to them for standing up for something they believe in.
I think it would be naive to suggest this would change all people's views though. You ask what parents would hold such views about marriage for their gay children. I'd say some would. It's not as black and white as completing shunning your child for being gay or entirely embracing the views of gay people. For example, a parent could be happy for their childen to be in a gay relationship but don't necessarily think they should be married.
This proposals currently however do discriminate against religions... the ones who want to marry gay people - but it seems that people keep forgetting this. My MP, when I raised it with him, didn't even bother to answer my questions about that, just kept banging on about how churches would be forced to marry gay people. It seems that in the minds of some, not only does some religion trump civil equality, it also trumps other religions.
Afaik any religion that does not oppose gay marriages is free to perform them as the UK doesn't legislate against that.
BIB - How can you have no problem with gay relationships but think they shouldn't be called 'marriage'? Would you say that people who opposed mixed-race couples marrying had no problem with mixed-race relationships?
There must be something they have a problem with, or they wouldn't oppose it.
Gay "relationships", in my mind, implies anything romantic. People could have no problem with this relationship/romance entering into a civil partnership, but mainly for religious reasons, they don't think the relationship should enter into a marriage.
I know I'm generalizing here, but it does seem like it's predominantly religious people who have a problem with gay marriage. I'm confident some of those same religious people have no problem with gay civil partnerships. It seems to be implied that you're either burning everything LGBT related or fully supportive of all gay movements for equal rights. There can be, and is a middle ground and I don't think that middle ground is an entirely bigoted place to be.
I agree about the impact of having gay friends/family on some people's views. It does make it seem a more "real issue" for them, and if they decide to speak out for their friends/family, fair play to them for standing up for something they believe in.
I think it would be naive to suggest this would change all people's views though. You ask what parents would hold such views about marriage for their gay children. I'd say some would. It's not as black and white as completing shunning your child for being gay or entirely embracing the views of gay people. For example, a parent could be happy for their childen to be in a gay relationship but don't necessarily think they should be married.
I certainly agree with you there. Some people would disown their own children if they were gay. It happens quite a lot in some more conservative US states where there are very disproportionate numbers of gay homeless youngsters. Still, for a great many families there is a positive change in perception towards these issues. Many of the biggest campaigners for equality on these issues of straight parents of gay children. When people see up close what intolerance there can be, I think there feel a need to make a positive change.
Of course a parent could want to see their child happy but not accept gay marriage, but I'd say that all in all, quite often people are transformed. Often not overnight, but eventually. Though again like you say, some are shunned or not fully accepted. There are plenty of studies out there about how peoples attitudes towards black people changed when they worked along side them and I see attitudes in people going the same way with gay people. There will always be diehards with any belief system, but I think very often when people see commonality they become more open to the possibility that other peoples lives are not very different from their own.
Gay "relationships", in my mind, implies anything romantic. People could have no problem with this relationship/romance entering into a civil partnership, but mainly for religious reasons, they don't think the relationship should enter into a marriage.
I know I'm generalizing here, but it does seem like it's predominantly religious people who have a problem with gay marriage. I'm confident some of those same religious people have no problem with gay civil partnerships. It seems to be implied that you're either burning everything LGBT related or fully supportive of all gay movements for equal rights. There can be, and is a middle ground and I don't think that middle ground is an entirely bigoted place to be.
They still have a problem with gay relationships - they just have a reason they can vocalise. A reason that not all religious people share by the way, including myself and my religious group.
The middle ground is to allow civil authorities and religions who wish to do so the right to marry same sex-couples. No-one is proposing the opponent's churches (etc) have to follow suit.
However, I do think there is a "social pressure" on those opposed to it, which I feel is wrong. First of all, being opposed to gay marrriage does not equate to being homophobic IMO. Throw your definitions of homophobia at me, it won't change my feelings. I think it's feasible that some people have no problem with gay relationships (therefore, not being homophobic), but they feel like marriage is something that should be kept apart. Whether that is right or wrong, is again a matter of opinion but labels of "homophobic" are misplaced in that situation.
I don't think it's a black and white issue though. Clearly many people with a strong dislike of same sex marriage do dislike gay people or view them as second class in some respects. I certain think it can be a sign that someone is obviously anti-gay, but as you say not always. There are so many factors that can come into play.
There may well be some social pressure to accept gay people, but then again there are also social stigmas and pressures still for gay people, so it's not all one way. People are at least able to think about how they view others. With sexuality it pretty much is what it is. Gay people have been badly mistreated through the passage of time, and really only now for the first time are being heard. Serious conversations about whether we should have gay marriage would not even be taking place twenty or even ten years ago. Much like views on interracial marriage, the coin will eventually fall on one side. I'm sure people 5% of so of the population have misgivings about that kind of relationship, but we don't say that it's unfair that social pressures are there which try to turn people away from such views.
They still have a problem with gay relationships - they just have a reason they can vocalise. A reason that not all religious people share by the way, including myself and my religious group.
The middle ground is to allow civil authorities and religions who wish to do so the right to marry same sex-couples. No-one is proposing the opponent's churches (etc) have to follow suit.
They have a reason for taking issues with an aspect of gay relationships, which is the push for the right to marry. I feel that saying they have a problem with gay relationships as a whole is misleading. To me, that is suggesting they are homophobic, which as I've stated, I think can be distinct from opposition to gay marriage.
As for your idea of the middle ground, it seems quite reasonable to me. The only problem with that might be that certain sections of a church which remains opposed to gay marriage might be in favour of it. And similarly, certain sections of a pro-gay marriage religion might be against it. How would you find out the majority opinion? Hold church referendums (not wanting to sound flippant here)?
They can perform Civil Partnership ceremonies, not marriages. Completely different thing covered by two separate Acts of Parliament.
In which case if the law is changed those religions that currently perform civil partnership ceremonies would be able to perform gay marriages. So we are back to it being about the term 'marriage'.
I don't think it's a black and white issue though. Clearly many people with a strong dislike of same sex marriage do dislike gay people or view them as second class in some respects. I certain think it can be a sign that someone is obviously anti-gay, but as you say not always. There are so many factors that can come into play.
There may well be some social pressure to accept gay people, but then again there are also social stigmas and pressures still for gay people, so it's not all one way. People are at least able to think about how they view others. With sexuality it pretty much is what it is. Gay people have been badly mistreated through the passage of time, and really only now for the first time are being heard. Serious conversations about whether we should have gay marriage would not even be taking place twenty or even ten years ago. Much like views on interracial marriage, the coin will eventually fall on one side. I'm sure people 5% of so of the population have misgivings about that kind of relationship, but we don't say that it's unfair that social pressures are there which try to turn people away from such views.
I agree with the first paragraph. Whereas I'm trying to make the point that it's possible to be opposed to gay marriage and not homophobic, I am aware that unfortunately they often go hand in hand.
I'm all for people putting forward intelligent, thoughtful and respectful arguments for gay rights, as you and jesaya are, but I'm uncomfortable with the way people are sometimes harangued for putting forward an argument, with similar traits, for the opposition. Just as there is with a coin, there are two sides to every debate.
Obviously, if people are crass with their arguments, then they deserve criticism. If you can't be bothered to show some basic respect with your argument, then don't be surprised when no-one wants to listen.
Comments
Amusing you ask for proof yet offered none yourself when claiming it wasn't. Anyway you miss my entire point, there shouldn't be laws that prohibit freedom of thought or speech unless it explicitly encouarge others to go out and break the law.
I think people should be able to believe whatever you want for whatever reason they want. However as the poster points out, it's interesting how some people centre in on this issue and fight tooth and claw to stop equality under the law for gay people and leave other things they disagree with well alone.
In many ways I'd prefer the government to get out of marriage altogether and institutions to do their own thing, but also, I do feel the need to combat illogical stance and injustice. If people want to view others as second class citizens that's their right to do so, but I'm personally not a type of character who can do that, whether we're talking due to their race, gender, sexuality, disability or whatever.
You made the claim so the onus is on you to provide the proof - remember?
There's laws about speech to protect people like hate speech etc
Well I already did but you ignored it, laws have been passed to restrict freedom of speech and people are often vilified for holding views that are not deemed correct by many.
There is an old saying about sticks and stones and words.
I agree, and we don't have laws like that. We have laws that stop people from inciting hatred - this seems perfectly reasonable to me. However no-one is using those laws to stop people opposing equal marriage.
What some people are doing is saying that others are homophobic for opposing it... and they have the right to say that too, even if others don't agree with them.
It's easy to fall back on the "those queers/poofs" types of comments that so many of us heard as kids and that fuel our views, as if "it's odd" is any kind of reason to stop people marrying, or is in any way rational. The issue needs to become real for people to realise how misguided and unfair some of their ideas can be. Like any prejudice, in twenty years no-one will be talking about this as though it's an undecided issue. People will move on, hopefully to something that doesn't detract from the quality of peoples lives.
I agree, that is my whole point.
Good, then we should all move on and discuss why people oppose equal marriage rather than whether they have the right to, which we all agree they do.
My MP thinks it should be opposed because people will try and force churches to marry gay people. Seems to be the popular reason at the moment. I guess trying to shoe-horn religious freedom into what is actually a proposal for a change to civil laws may be their last bastion.
That saying is a lie used to belittle the power of words
By those who oppose the rights of others to say what they like.
Nah
it's just so stupid
Like how religions preach something and many follow that, that's one example of the power of words
Plus referring to people in derogatory terms hurts most people anyway
There are those who oppose homosexuality. There are those who oppose the state allowing homosexual couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples which they now do in the UK.
The above have rightly lost the argument and the last issue is the use of the term marriage and churches right to refuse to marry homsexuals. If UK state civil partnerships are amended and the term marriage is used in them I don't see a problem with that but I don't support forcing those whose religious views prohibit this to accept they must carry out marriage ceremonies for homosexuals.
However, I do think there is a "social pressure" on those opposed to it, which I feel is wrong. First of all, being opposed to gay marrriage does not equate to being homophobic IMO. Throw your definitions of homophobia at me, it won't change my feelings. I think it's feasible that some people have no problem with gay relationships (therefore, not being homophobic), but they feel like marriage is something that should be kept apart. Whether that is right or wrong, is again a matter of opinion but labels of "homophobic" are misplaced in that situation.
Threatening people with those labels is intimidating. No, being opposed to gay marriage isn't a crime but there certainly is a social stigma to it, which shouldn't be there IMO. I've seen some people use the argument that people on Digital Spy and Twitter are airing their homophobic views, and that this discredits the argument that people are afraid to speak out. Two points. 1) Those comments are vulgar. They're not just opposed to gay marriage, which as I have stated isn't in itself homophobic IMO, they're showing hatred towards gay people which I certainly condemn. 2) Why do you think they have the confidence to do that? It's because they're anonymous on the Internet. I know some people from Twitter have been prosecuted, but the sheer amount of people posting those views means the chances of detection/identification are slim. I am confident that those people wouldn't say such things face to face with a gay person, or in general public view, because they'd be frightened of the reaction. Although the Twitter users are right to be frightened of the law, as their hatred is a crime (I assume?), people merely against gay marriage have similar fears.
The proposals from the government are clear - only civil marriage will be impacted by the change. And CPs will not be amended - the Marriage Act will be... to extend this to cover same-sex couples.
I don't accept forcing religious bodies to carry out same sex marriages either - and I don't know anyone involved in the campaign who does... because we support religious freedom as well as marriage equality.
This proposals currently however do discriminate against religions... the ones who want to marry gay people - but it seems that people keep forgetting this. My MP, when I raised it with him, didn't even bother to answer my questions about that, just kept banging on about how churches would be forced to marry gay people. It seems that in the minds of some, not only does some religion trump civil equality, it also trumps other religions.
BIB - How can you have no problem with gay relationships but think they shouldn't be called 'marriage'? Would you say that people who opposed mixed-race couples marrying had no problem with mixed-race relationships?
There must be something they have a problem with, or they wouldn't oppose it.
I agree about the impact of having gay friends/family on some people's views. It does make it seem a more "real issue" for them, and if they decide to speak out for their friends/family, fair play to them for standing up for something they believe in.
I think it would be naive to suggest this would change all people's views though. You ask what parents would hold such views about marriage for their gay children. I'd say some would. It's not as black and white as completing shunning your child for being gay or entirely embracing the views of gay people. For example, a parent could be happy for their childen to be in a gay relationship but don't necessarily think they should be married.
Afaik any religion that does not oppose gay marriages is free to perform them as the UK doesn't legislate against that.
Gay "relationships", in my mind, implies anything romantic. People could have no problem with this relationship/romance entering into a civil partnership, but mainly for religious reasons, they don't think the relationship should enter into a marriage.
I know I'm generalizing here, but it does seem like it's predominantly religious people who have a problem with gay marriage. I'm confident some of those same religious people have no problem with gay civil partnerships. It seems to be implied that you're either burning everything LGBT related or fully supportive of all gay movements for equal rights. There can be, and is a middle ground and I don't think that middle ground is an entirely bigoted place to be.
I certainly agree with you there. Some people would disown their own children if they were gay. It happens quite a lot in some more conservative US states where there are very disproportionate numbers of gay homeless youngsters. Still, for a great many families there is a positive change in perception towards these issues. Many of the biggest campaigners for equality on these issues of straight parents of gay children. When people see up close what intolerance there can be, I think there feel a need to make a positive change.
Of course a parent could want to see their child happy but not accept gay marriage, but I'd say that all in all, quite often people are transformed. Often not overnight, but eventually. Though again like you say, some are shunned or not fully accepted. There are plenty of studies out there about how peoples attitudes towards black people changed when they worked along side them and I see attitudes in people going the same way with gay people. There will always be diehards with any belief system, but I think very often when people see commonality they become more open to the possibility that other peoples lives are not very different from their own.
They can perform Civil Partnership ceremonies, not marriages. Completely different thing covered by two separate Acts of Parliament.
They still have a problem with gay relationships - they just have a reason they can vocalise. A reason that not all religious people share by the way, including myself and my religious group.
The middle ground is to allow civil authorities and religions who wish to do so the right to marry same sex-couples. No-one is proposing the opponent's churches (etc) have to follow suit.
I don't think it's a black and white issue though. Clearly many people with a strong dislike of same sex marriage do dislike gay people or view them as second class in some respects. I certain think it can be a sign that someone is obviously anti-gay, but as you say not always. There are so many factors that can come into play.
There may well be some social pressure to accept gay people, but then again there are also social stigmas and pressures still for gay people, so it's not all one way. People are at least able to think about how they view others. With sexuality it pretty much is what it is. Gay people have been badly mistreated through the passage of time, and really only now for the first time are being heard. Serious conversations about whether we should have gay marriage would not even be taking place twenty or even ten years ago. Much like views on interracial marriage, the coin will eventually fall on one side. I'm sure people 5% of so of the population have misgivings about that kind of relationship, but we don't say that it's unfair that social pressures are there which try to turn people away from such views.
They have a reason for taking issues with an aspect of gay relationships, which is the push for the right to marry. I feel that saying they have a problem with gay relationships as a whole is misleading. To me, that is suggesting they are homophobic, which as I've stated, I think can be distinct from opposition to gay marriage.
As for your idea of the middle ground, it seems quite reasonable to me. The only problem with that might be that certain sections of a church which remains opposed to gay marriage might be in favour of it. And similarly, certain sections of a pro-gay marriage religion might be against it. How would you find out the majority opinion? Hold church referendums (not wanting to sound flippant here)?
In which case if the law is changed those religions that currently perform civil partnership ceremonies would be able to perform gay marriages. So we are back to it being about the term 'marriage'.
I agree with the first paragraph. Whereas I'm trying to make the point that it's possible to be opposed to gay marriage and not homophobic, I am aware that unfortunately they often go hand in hand.
I'm all for people putting forward intelligent, thoughtful and respectful arguments for gay rights, as you and jesaya are, but I'm uncomfortable with the way people are sometimes harangued for putting forward an argument, with similar traits, for the opposition. Just as there is with a coin, there are two sides to every debate.
Obviously, if people are crass with their arguments, then they deserve criticism. If you can't be bothered to show some basic respect with your argument, then don't be surprised when no-one wants to listen.