Can you be against Gay marriage and not be Homophobic?

The word first appeared in 1972. It was coined by psychologist George Weinberg who is heterosexual.

Just because a person is against something doesn't mean that they hate it or are fearful of it.

According to the US Constitution everyone is equal. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that separate is not equal. Anything less then marriage is not marriage.

I would argue that marriage is a religious idea, and that the state adopting the verbiage of marriage is incorrect. When the state recognizes two individuals linking themselves and their legal liabilities together, the state is recognizing a civil union. The state doesn't make a to do about the linking of souls or this that and the other in Gods eyes. Everyone who links themselves with another party is in a civil union. Effectively it is a contract that can be nullified by legal means, whereas a marriage, according to religious traditions, is a promise that is sanctified by a Diety. So the actual issue at hand is of a legal nature and not a religious one. If it were a religious issue then a person can do as so many others before have done and write their own moral code, call it a religion and be done with it.

I agree with you. Civil union should be between any two persons not married in a church be they straight or gay. But it leads to an interesting scenario; Who is really going to say, " Our civil union anniversary in June 18th" or "We went to Vegas and got unioned."?
The common use of married would quickly become the norm. So now we have civil unions and marriage, they are equal under the law in terms of benefits and privileges, but everyone calls what they have marriage. Ridiculous.

Seems to me that the semantic argument is exactly what the present issue is all about.

The "I have no problem with gays but i don't think they should be allowed to marry." comments or the civil unions vs. marriage arguments are not what this about.
"They" are not like "us" is what this is about. I don't think that nescesarily means the person in homophobic, but they clearly have an issue with gay people, not words.

Agreed. I hear you Chris.  Part of my argument is greatly influence by many recent outside conversations.  I am definitely carrying a bias into this conversation and may be reaching past it's limits.  

There is definitely an "us vs. them" thing going on in the majority of this issue which is agitating. While this argument rages, people who have dedicated their lives to one another are loosing all that they have built over that lifetime because they have no legal protection against the greed or bigotry of others. Which is why I advocate for the civil union aspect. It pulls the religious argument away and gets to the crux of the issue. Truly this issue needs to be addressed and resolved. The gay community is past due for this type of protection and everyday that this issue lingers is another day of injustice for the people affected.

Logical and well reasoned. Unfortunately things don't work like that in this country. Some sort of case dealing with this will go to the Supreme Court and they will probably rule under the 14th Amendment, either due process or equal protection or both, in favor causing lots of "activist courts" debating. 50 years from now some people will still dislike homosexuals, some will still be complaining about activist courts, and there will be a new issue causing the "destruction of our society". Live goes on and no one will remember when or why this was such a big deal. :^D

Under that argument, the equal protection clause of the Constitution, the redefinition of marriage could be argued both ways.

First, your view, if a man and a woman can get married, then a man and man, or a woman and a woman should also be able to get married, as that would be equal.

Second is the viewpoint I do not hear talked about very often, and that is marriage is clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman, and therefore is not discriminatory to people in same sex relationships. Furthermore, if marriage is redefined to include same sex unions, then under the equal protection clause of the Constitution marriage would have to be redefined again for the next group of people who wanted to get married, such as polygamists, and there would be no end.

To deny equal protection to one group because you fear what another group might do is not a good legal argument and it's not a good moral argument.

"It has always been this way." is the argument used to defend discrimination when all the others have failed.

It is a legal question, and therefore legal arguments are what is going to matter.

It does matter beyond the "equal rights" scenario also, because what is being proposed is the redefinition of marriage, and that is a pretty huge proposal. I think that that part of the matter is largely glossed over, and that is going to matter a great deal should the case be heard in the Supreme Court.

Why would you be against gay marriage if you weren't against gays?

Also don't say religion. Because the thing is marriage is not just a religious institution. Its also regulated by the state. Seperate church and state or else we'll be theocracies where the religion of the majority decides the law, like the countries where women aren't allowed to drive.

Because "Marriage" is defined by many cultures and religions as a man and a women----G/L need to be tolerant of others beliefs--tolerance goes both ways

Marriage can also be defined in different ways. Not to mention the term changes. Why Long ago marriage meant "coveture" that is to say "the man and woman become one person, and that person is the man". All property went to the man.We changed that and made it equal.

Marriage is the term society uses that declares a full partnership with all the rights thereof.

Tolerance goes both ways. That means that I can tolerate you disliking gays. I won't make a law that discriminated against you disliking gays. I won't have a law that means you are banned from marrying some one of the opposite sex.

In the same way tolerate them. Don't make a law that goes against what they believe. You wont be forced to marry gay people in your church. There are other churches who will willingly do that.

Also if marriage is defined by many as between a man and a woman does that mean that we should oppress (by law) the religions who believe its between two consenting adults regardless of gender?

Keep it equal. Keep religion and the law seperate.

the origins of the word marriage Comes from the word Maier which means Bonding social unions under law

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important.

Traditional Marriage History
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

Many of today's popular wedding ceremony and reception traditions can be traced to ancient Pagan Roman,Greek and Egyptian Empires
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

the origins of the word marriage Comes from the word Maier which means Bonding social unions under law

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important.

Traditional Marriage History
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

Many of today's popular wedding ceremony and reception traditions can be traced to ancient Pagan Roman,Greek and Egyptian Empires
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

Agree but what is your point?

Educate yourself

READ it instead of being Ignorant your whole life

How about we separate marriage from state? If that was done it wouldn't matter what we think. I'm against gay marriage, but I am also against the legality of marriage being decided by the state. So if marriage wasn't a matter of the state, it wouldn't matter what my opinion is, or what other opinions are for that matter.

Then who's direction would marriage fall under? The Church? And which Church out of all the sects of all the different religions in the world.

the origins of the word marriage Comes from the word Maier which means Bonding social unions under law

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important.

Traditional Marriage History
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

Many of today's popular wedding ceremony and reception traditions can be traced to ancient Pagan Roman,Greek and Egyptian Empires
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

So why should the state decide what is ok or not? Why does the state have any say in what marriage is? Marriage means a variety of things for a variety of people. However I have MY beliefs and I'm not going to compromise my beliefs, and as long as my opinion matters I will not support gay marriage. I believe it is wrong and I will stay that way. If it wasn't a state or federal issue though, my opinion and the opinion of others wouldn't matter.

you can believe anything you want but the moment you force your beliefs on others then we have a problem

I'm not FORCING my beliefs on anyone, however I'm not going to compromise my beliefs for anyone either. I don't care if there are people who think gay marriage is ok, I'm not going to say that it's ok for their sake. I also won't say that "I just don't care either way" because I DO care. This is also why, as long as the issue of marriage is up to the state, I stand strongly against it.

Yes, of course!
Just like you can believe in dating and be against rape.

Far less so than your opinion.

Scary even--a peek into his mind. >shudders<

that guy is mental

Oh, I know it.

You can think that the word "marriage" should be used for religious heterosexual "uniting" ceremonies only and that "civil union" is fine for homosexual couples wishing to commit.

But I suspect that many people who profess that pov are just hiding the truth from others, if not from themselves.

I think each church should be able to decide whether to perform gay ceremonies.

the origins of the word marriage Comes from the word Maier which means Bonding social unions under law

Marriage (or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people may also be called matrimony. People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, economic, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important.

Traditional Marriage History
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

Many of today's popular wedding ceremony and reception traditions can be traced to ancient Pagan Roman,Greek and Egyptian Empires
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...

If a woman wants to be with a woman, that's okay. Because I don't think there's a man that would want Rosie O Donnell anyway. Seeing men kiss,makes me feel ill. I can't help it. My cousin had been an Army wife & mother of two for years, a few in Germany. Then while living in Maryland, he fell for another woman. Back in Indiana my she met a lady from Indy & they fell in love & had a ceremony. That lasted a couple years. Then the lady went back to her husband. That can be confusing.

I am sure that gay couples get just as sick watching heterosexual couples kiss too. Hell, a lot of people don't like watching anyone kiss.

My dad is not homophobic (as his wife's brother is gay and he's not upset by him or anything), but he believes that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman. He supports Civil Unions and Gay Rights about legal issues, but he believes it would be disgusting and and ruining the sanctity of marriage if a man and a man or woman and a woman were to marry.

As proven in education, separate is not equal. I don't care what you want to call it, anything less than a marriage is not marriage. The constitution states that everyone is equal so they should be allowed to be married, if only by the state.

I never said anything less than marriage is marriage.

The Constitution also calls for separation of Church and State, and we have a problem maintaining that line as it is.

Separation of Church and State is a parphrase of the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF! It was intended to prevent the establishment of one specific denomination as the official national religion (such as the Roman Catholic Church in Italy, or the Church of England in Great Britian) and also to prevent Government interference with religion in general. Basically it was to keep the Government out of religion. It was NEVER intended to keep religious influence out of the Government! Those who quote "Separation of Church and State" are usually atheists trying to force their religion of unbelief on the masses. Overall, "Separation of Church and State" is a restriction on the STATE, not the Church!