Can you be against Gay marriage and not be Homophobic?

Yes, that's how I am. Just because I'm against a certain belief & do my best to follow God's word, doesn't mean I treat bi/pan/homosexuals any different compared to heterosexuals. They're still people. Nearly everybody can pinpoint something in nearly everyone elses beliefs or actions & disagree with it. Homosexuals can be the best of friends, I've met some awesome people who weren't straight & met some awesome people who are straight. There are people who I absolutely can't stand who are homosexual, there are people I absolutely can't stand who are heterosexual. There's a difference between me wanting the best for people in the end & wanting them to have a relationship with God compared to hating them & fearing them. I don't know where people get this stuff. Either way, God loves everybody, that's all that matters. :-)

I agree, to me the issue isn't Gay behavior, it's Gay marriage

I am against same sex marriage, but not against the principle that people can be free to live with a person of their choice - whether same sex or not - and if they want to enter into a civil partnership that's fine by me.

I do not recognise the union of two people of the same sex as equal to that of a man and a woman, since there is no possibility, from their relationship, that a child can be produced. Marriage, the voluntary union of one man and one woman, does, in most cases, enable this possibility.

Marriage isn't just about the selfish needs and wants of two people - it's about providing a structure by which children can be brought into the world in a safe environment, with a biological mother and father, preferably.

I my best friend is not for gay marriage, because he is of the idea that marriage is one man and one woman, but he is all for them being able to have a marriage-like relationship with all of the benefits therein. I understand his point, but I don't agree with him.

I believe just as your friend does

And you are welcome to it. I feel that, as a gay persons marriage rights do not affect any straight persons marriage, we should all stop fighting about it and just let it happen. It does not affect the "sanctity" of marriage at all because if that were really a valid argument, no one would ever cheat on their spouse or get a divorce. Marriage would really be forever. The issue is the very conservative churches don't want to be forced to perform the ceremonies. But, what they don't seem to realize, is that a vast majority of gay couples don't want to be married in a house of God that they are not welcome in. That would be a really stupid way to make a point.

We can disagree---no big deal.

You can be against gay marriage and be ignorant of your homophobia

33 states voted on Gay marriage---33 states voted it down
Obviously it was people on both sides who do not approve of Gay marriage and voted against it. The margins Gay marriage lost when put to vote were huge in each of the 33 states. It's not just the far right who vote against Gay marriage
Deal with it---America does not want Gay marriage and those who are against represent Conservatives, liberal and Indy's

Gay marriage and Gay lifestyle are 2 completely different issues

From a heterosexuals point of view yes

For everyone----not the same issue at all

Certainly. One might very easily be of the opinion "Gays have enough problems, let's not afflict them with marriage, too."

lol, it's going to be interesting when they start losing money to there partners in divorce cases.Be careful what you wish for. The Divorce lawyers are crossing there fingers, they will benefit greatly from Gay marriage

I am, I think anyone can fall in love because the heart cannot be controlled but marriage is between a man and woman.

Love is involuntary; whereas marriage is voluntary.

So sweet---and so Gay

lol, gay meaning happy or gay meaning homosexual?

Of course you can. I am also anti bigamy yet some men have lots of wives. (Can't remember the name of the religion that encourages them.) To me marriage should be between one man and one woman and to the exclusion of all others.
Edited due to typo.

Polygamy is common in many cultures

More's the pity imho.

Huh?

'More's the pity 'is like saying 'Sad but true'
imho - in my humble opinion. :-)

What is it the homosexual community is looking for in their demand for marriage?

If it is acceptance by those who are currently married and those who believe in the sacriments, it's not going to happen, homosexuals are not normal people, and they have set themselves apart from the rest of the world’s community for the sake of un-natural, deviant behaviour.

When the PC brigade force the sane to bend over and allow this form of corruption to become law; still they will not be accepted.

Why? Well because they are on the outside of normality.

Homophobic? I do not fear them, I just want them to keep out of my face.

Well said D'eath.

The voice of sanity....

Oops, wrong answer.

What i mean was, you don't have to be afraid of gay people to irrationally hate them and want them to live 2nd class lives.

However, you cannot oppose gay marriage and not be a bigot.

Yep, bigot.

Can you oppose Polygamy and not be a bigot?

Who's opposing polygamy?

The problem we have here, is big government telling consenting adults how to live their lives.

Every law on the books that does not create a victim should be stricken from the record.

being inherently opposed to letting people live their lives the way they see fit instead of the way you see fit, makes you a bigot by default.

Take me for example. I hate religion. Pretty sure it's done nothing but hold us back and murder over half a billion people.

Doesn't mean i'd introduce legislation to prevent people from believing their bronze aged bullsht in peace.

Nobody is telling anyone how to live there lives, the problem is the Homosexual groups are demanding the definition of marriage be changed. That is arrogant and intolerant.

Actually, they are.

What you're saying when you say gays cant' get married is, gays can't have legal families, or be afforded the same civil rights heterosexual partners are afforded.

When the person you love and spend your life with isn't allowed on your insurance policy, or at your death bed, something is wrong. When the person you've raised your kids with isn't recognized as a legal guardian of your child by the state, something is wrong. When you give or take benefits from people based on sexual orientation, something is wrong.

Seems to me changing a silly definition to include all people is the easiest, and cheapest thing to do.

But i'm not infected with bronze aged reasoning.

I think the bigger question is, if both Jesus and The founding fathers agree that religion has no place in politics, why disagree with them?

What does getting married have to do with living there lives? I believe many people feel as I do---do whatever, with whoever, or whatever you wish but don't impose your opinion on what marriage is on me. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my eye's. It's been that way all through history and in every religion. Who the hell are they to think they can impose there new definition of marriage on the masses. This is more about them trying to push an agenda than it is personal rights----civil union rights will accomplish that.

Getting married comes with civil rights, without those rights, you are not respected as a member of your partner's family.

Are you suggesting Separate but Equal institutions?

I live in alabama, that didn't work out so well for us when we tried. Again the word bigot comes to mind.

If you want Civil unions to be the official name of the government institution that give lovers the status of family, then fine.

Make everyone get civilly united if they want uncle sam to recognize their union. Then they can go to a pastor to get recognized by god, if they deem it necessary after having already achieved all the civil rights currently given to married couples.

But again, swallowing some pride and changing the dictionaries is the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way to do it from a legislative standpoint.

Also, last i checked, people are opposing Civil Unions as well... Thankfully it fell thru in Tennessee, but the intent is clear.

Gay people are still largely okay to hate against, and until that changes, they will not shut up. And they will have the support of people like me.

Again it's a word. Words change to fit our needs all the time. As often as conservatives misuse the terms socialist and communist, you'd think they'd at least get that.

saying your word can't be modified to include all people, is intolerant. Saying you posses absolute knowledge of the universe is arrogance.

Wanting to be let in is ambition.

Ignorant is believing a small group of people have the right to change the definition of the word marriage. Like I said civil unions with all rights as a marriage is fine with me.

Fine, but then you lose the legal standing of the word Marriage, and it becomes a separate religious institution that is not recognized by the government.

Talk about violating the sanctity of marriage... It would be easier to change the damn definition. But god forbid a white christian lose an argument or swallow pride, or admit being wrong.

White Christian? This has nothing to do with Christianity in my mind, it has everything to do with the arrogance and intolerance of a small group of people who are not tolerant of long standing traditions and beliefs.Christians are a small part of whose beliefs they are trying to trample on.

No, this is about religion defending their little book.

No one else gives a sht. This is White Christian America oppressing anyone different than they are.

Every group that is not a white christian has come up against this exact opposition when struggling for their civil rights.

Wanting to have the same rights as everyone else is not arrogant, it's American.

Wanting to deprive someone of the same rights you have is Arrogant, and traitorous.

Doesn't apply to me--you just sound bitter toward religion, who cares what they think? You don't need to line up on every issue against religion like a brainwashed sheep

of course - although judging from the comments made by those who answered "no" seem to be intolerant ones

The Liberals are very intolerant of others views and beliefs