Can a person support Traditional Marriage principals and reject Gay Marriage without being Homophobic?

Jay has covered it.

Traditional marriage is based upon Natural Law. Do the math.

Traditional marriage natural, Gay marriage unnatural. If gay marriage was natural we wouldn't be having this conversation. If gay marriage was natural it would not have to be politicized and FORCED upon us.

Just because one is against gay marriage - doesn't mean they discriminate or avoid someone who is gay.

Be honest. If you can't support equal rights, you're really just afraid of gay people and seeing them have equal rights.

really? Then why do I have SEVERAL gays friends? Hmmmm?

So, you don't support them having the right to get married? You don't support them being equal citizens? Some friend.

If you only knew some of the stuff I have in my life you would not say I am afraid of gays.

I completely support equal rights. I am a female and I have the right to marry any male I wish (as long as he's not my close relative). A lesbian has the right to marry any male she wishes as well. What gay people really want is for the definition of marriage to be changed, and that's where I draw the line. My solution, and I think it's a good compromise, is that there should be civil unions available to all, with "marriages" left in the hands of religious institutions. Some would permit same-sex, others would not. Problem solved.

Your ideas are reasonable except for the glossing over of homosexuality as a choice. I have yet to see anything that proves it; just political malarkey by gays and their supporters. It being a choice means laws are being made capriciously. What other choices can people band together and alter society for? To me, homosexuality is essentially the same as religion. The only difference is religion done correctly is selfless and about improving life in general while homosexuality is purely selfish. It is all about advancing its agenda at the expense of everyone else.

We all have equal rights now. You and I can both marry any woman we choose. YOU want a special "right" that no one has now.

How is wanting to marry the person you love 'special?'

It isn't. Insisting that it is a "right" is.

Civil Union not marriage---you wouldn't understand it's a Straight thing.

nope sorry

civil union is a possibility. Many people would oppose benefits which are costly to governments being available to same sex marriage partners. I'm not against gay marriage.

I am all for civil unions.

Yes

Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Period. Civil Unions are for anyone. Marriage is in the church with traditional values. Civil Unions are performed by judges or whomever else. If you want to be blessed in the church through marriage you have to follow the rules. Just the way it is.

I'm not homophobic but I don't want their problems becoming the norm.

ho·mo·pho·bi·a [hoh-muh-foh-bee-uh] noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

Just because someone does not agree(or they think it's not acceptable) with the homosexual life style does NOT make them homophobic.

Not that I really give a damn about the subject. People are products of their environments; for instance, the church tells its followers that something is wrong and they follow.

Yes being said, said person is a hypocrite, as the definition of "Traditional Marriage" has changed right along with society. How many women in the US have you heard of being put to death for not being a virgin on their wedding night? Used to be tradition. Having more than one wife used to be tradition. Refusing to recognize Inter-ethnic unions was tradition. In some cases inter-ethnic marriages were a criminal offense, and this is in recent history. If you're against same sex marriage, fine, don't have one. No one is asking YOU to marry someone of the same gender.

If you are against traditional marrige, fine, don't have one

Too many words in your question. Why are you homophobic? Let people do as they wish. But O Man I also wish gay people would just keep that information to themselves, then they would have no problems. My next door neighbor is gay. After I had been here a year she told me so, like I didn't know :). She looks the part. Yet she is a nice person so I am friendly to her appropriately as I am not gay.

The question is not about Gay people it's about Gay marriage

I'm not homophobic, why are people hetrophobic? Just because I do not agree with it doesn't mean I'm in any way shape of form homophobic, I don't fear gay people, I think they're some of the nicest people I've ever met but why is it that if I happen to disagree with it all of a sudden I'm homophobic?
I think that term should stop being used on people who simply disagree with it because of their beliefs because it's losing all it's meaning like how I'm called racist if I disagree with Obama even though I've dated black women and have black friends and family members...
Remember that 38 out of 38 times gay marriage has been shot down in even the most liberal states and also you have to remember that only 2.8% of the population is actually Gay so the real question is why should we change marriage for less than 3% of the population?

I don't see why not

I certainly can..

You can be against Gay Marriage and not be homophobic, but only in one narrow line of thinking. In this scenario, you are for Traditional Marriage but also for Civil Unions. In this way you are saying, the church can retain their stance and only marry heterosexuals, but the government has the obligation to serve all of its people. Now, we are not talking about incest or pedophilia; we aren't even talking about polygamy. Just two consenting adult citizens who should have the same legal rights as everyone else. The government should not be in the business of handing legal privileges to one section of the population, but not another. Not when there is no discernable harm to society by granting these rights. Whether you agree or not is beside the point. The government allows the people "the pursuit of happiness." This is not about sex. It is about a legal right to the privileges that come with a recognized union of two consenting adults.

Nope your being not fair and being a royal Homophobic bigot. Gay should have the same rights as every one else in this county.

They do---

You sure can, becasue it's not about the rights, it's about changing the definition of a word that's had the same meaning for thousands of years.

When black wanted equal rights with white, they didn't want to be called, "white", did they?

And when women wanted to be equal with men, did they want to be called, "men"?

No.

It's about control, not the rights

on a side note, a gay man already has the right to marry a woman, and a lesbian already has a right to marry a man.

So the right is NOT being denied.

That's absurd. A gay man by definition is not inclined to marry a woman, and neither would a lesbian be interested in marrying a man. So that is not the issue. The issue is being denied the legal protections and privileges of a recognized same-sex union.

Please address the first post.

This is not about rights.

Ok, I will. How is this not about rights? One couple is granted legal protections, benefits and recognition while the other is not. Under the constitution all citizens are supposed to be equal. How is it about changing the definition of the word, (I assume you mean) marriage? I personally think gays would have an easier time of getting Civil Unions passed on a national level than Gay Marriage precisely because there are too many people intent on making it about the religious definition of marriage, as defined by men of the church who have interpreted the Bible that way. But this is not about the church, or religious freedom. It is about a citizen's right to have the same privileges under the law as everyone else. You cannot make the argument that under national law, gays are treated equally when it comes to forming legal unions. They simply are not. It is unconstitutional.

First, I want to thank you for your response. It is well thought out and polite. :-)

you said, "I personally think gays would have an easier time of getting Civil Unions passed on a national level than Gay Marriage precisely because there are too many people intent on making it about the religious definition of marriage, as defined by men of the church who have interpreted the Bible that way."

I am in 100% agreement with this statement.

I feel that by using the word, "unionship", or something like that, then those who oppose gays getting together would not have an argument.
That would put the onus on the opposers and would make it 100% about the right, and not the word.

Very well put.