Talk Elections

Are you pro or anti gay marriage?

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

There are a lot of things that have gone wrong with how we treat marriage in this country, but letting gays marry I think is the least of them. I would be more comfortable with it if gay marriage supporters were half as concerned about the institution of marriage itself as they were about using the issue as a tool to route out "bigots" and feel superior about themselves. Not all are that way of course, but if often seems like it. It just seems like so many liberals care so much about gay marriage on one hand, but simultaneous talk out of the other side of their mouth about how marriage is an archaic institution that should be done away with and about how progressive they are for opposing this anachronistic holdover. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not a bigot, so I'm in favor of gay marriage.

EDIT: LOL at realisticidealist's fake outrage over "people feeling superior about themselves."

Marriage is one of the most fundamental institutions in society, and allowing same sex couples to take part in it not only strengthens marriage itself but also strengthens families.

You pretty much just proved my point. Thanks.

Give me one non-religious reason for not supporting gay marriage.

I'm really not "pro" any kind of marriage, but if two people want to do so that's fine and dandy.  Ideally, abolish the state and thus legally binding marriage.

Undecided.

Did I say I was against it? I did not; my comment was at its supporters, not at its merits. There are non-religious reasons for not supporting it, but there aren't any particularly good non-religious reasons.

I just don't understand what is really mutually exclusive about thinking marriage is a decayed institution while also supporting legalizing gay marriage. Of course, I don't personally think marriage is an archaic institution that should be tossed away and listening to that argument gets me all testy, but you can absolutely think it's a decaying institution while also thinking there's no reason not to legalize gay marriage.

I'm just not sure where this hostility you have for this issue comes from. You act like you support it, but you hate that you have absolutely no choice but to support it; like you're angry that other people force you to admit you're wrong about something. It's weird from someone usually so reasonable and wonky about everything.

Both sides feel superior to the other side on this issue. The difference is, those for gay marriage use logic and appeals to the concept of equal rights to defend their position, while those against use religious texts (which, you know, are Constitutionally prohibited from being injected into U.S. law)  and appeals to "moral values" that nobody actually ever had.

There are plenty of people on both sides who don't feel superior to people on the other side.  Both sides use appeals to moral values - otherwise, it wouldn't arise so much passion. The Constitution doesn't prohibit anyone from arguing for a position based on their religion. There are secular arguments against gay marriage, it's just that these types of secular arguments are made in terms of tradition, natural law and other things that aren't highly respected in late modernity. Very few 18th century rationalists could have dreamed that gay marriage would be a rational position, for instance.

The issue of marriage is one that's extremely important and personal to me. I highly value everything that I believe it entails and represents: love, commitment, sacrifice, faith, etc. I believe it is the highest and purest form of love, to lay down your life for another and to never look back. That's what I believe it's meant to be. I've seen so many people, my parents and grandparents and entire family included, make poor decisions and end their marriages over petty things, things that responsible people should communicate with each other about and work out. For supposedly being teams, people just don't understand that means you sometimes have to lose, and that that's ok; they don't see the greater good. They fail because they don't understand what it means to succeed.

I've lived through the divorce of my parents, and I don't know if there's a much worse non-abusive thing you can do to a child. Divorce is like a death, a death that takes with it all comfort, protection, and innocence of others as a simple externality. It's the very antithesis of the values I most deeply believe in, the death of love itself in the broadest and most encompassing sense, and it's so often for such trivial reasons. I can't understand it. Not one bit.

When I see people getting married without thought or planning, without care and consideration, I see people who don't take marriage seriously. I see people who are implicitly opening themselves up to that pain, a pain that never dies, and I see people who value so little what I cherish so much. Conversely, when I see people trash marriage as archaic, I see people who so often don't have the wherewithal to personify what I believe are the highest values people should strive for. I see people who want the benefits of relationships without the sacrifice and the commitment. I see people who are scared because they might get hurt when that pain could be as easily avoided by communication as by fleeing from the challenge. What I see is pettiness, and I harms my faith in humanity.

Gay marriage should come from this same place as straight marriage. It should come from the same values. But when I see the same people who make a fuss about marriage equality make fun of people who marry young, or people who get married at all, or sometimes even of monogamy (or monandry) itself, I don't understand why they would want to go through all the trouble of expanding something they fundamentally disagree with. Why would something think, "you know people shouldn't get married" and then "we should let gays get married" unless they had some sort of sadistic streak toward gays? Either you think marriage is a bad thing or you don't. I'm also not a fan of how marriage is couched in terms of rights; I don't think anyone has a right to a marriage, but rather that it should be a privilege. That's probably a purely textual matter, though. At the same time, I think conservatives have fallen for a red herring on this issue, instead of focusing on actually strengthening marriage; they themselves are as much to blame as anyone.

This issue comes up so incredibly much, and over and over and over again, the exact same arguments are made. The same incompatiblities come up in the discourse. People who can't possibly see the other side of the issue, and who so easily denigrate those who do. Gay marriage supporters are heathens and gay marriage deniers are bigots, sure whatever. It's poisonous is what it is. I hate the issue because of what it does to people; as someone who inately dislikes conflict, I honestly wish it would just go away. The government could recognize whatever and churches could recognize whatever. Maybe then people who stop hating each other over something so petty as a definition. Probably not.

There's no reason gays can't fulfill everything I described, just as there is not a reason why straights can't. I wish everyone would just do what they promise. I wish people weren't so self-centered about things that don't just involve themselves. But that is not this world.

Perhaps my issues are more sociological than political. But is there really any difference?

Huh? I remember you cheerleading pretty hard when New York legalized it and bashing North Carolina and krazen after that vote.

As for me, pro obviously.

I'm joking, of course. ;)

Well sh!t son, I thought you were a Moderate Hero for a moment there.

realisticidealist's post made me vom in my mouth.

I support the right for gays to marry. I don't necessarily support them getting married on a whim or marrying for religious reasons. I want them to have civil rights because I believe that it's of the utmost importance to treat everyone equally. This isn't an awkward position because I have a libertarian streak. Even if I disagree with someone's actions, I will enthusiastically argue for them to have the right to take those actions. It's important if you believe in a free society.

It saddens me that you'd think this argument is about marriage. It isn't. It's about people not having the principle of equality under the law extended to them. Until the LGBT community receives this, I'll continue to fight for them.

I don't support it.

I'm totally and categorically opposed to marriage of any kind, but I suppose it is possible a gay would nag, henpeck, and indulge in jealousy a bit less.  So yes, as a lesser of two evils - A Marriage Gay!

In a perfect world, the right to a civil union would be extended to both straight and gay people and marriage would remain a purely religious institution that isn't state-sanctioned. In this world, pro-gay marriage.


Care to elaborate?

Sadly I'm just a good, old fashioned, straight laced conservative. I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial, and thus I don't think its in our power, or that it is our right to change that.

I don't want to offend anyone, and I probably won't convince anyone who supports gay marriage, so don't bother replying to this post.

Does that also count for siblings and people living in polygamous relationships? "Marriage Equality", by definition of the term, obviously involves much more than gay and lesbian couples.

Equating gay marriage with incest. What a wonderful position.

Nah, support for sibling incest and polygamous marriage falls under "Defense of Traditional Marriage."  They're as traditional as it gets.

EDIT:  just finished reading a book about 18th-19th century Hawaii.  Pretty hilarious to watch the islanders defend their idea of traditional marriage (sibling incest) against the wave of Christian missionaries.

Don't avoid answering the question. We can't speak of "marriage equality" if heterosexual and homosexual couples can marry but other people are excluded from the right to enter a civil union/get married. It's not logical.

For the record, Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School, put forward a similar argument. (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/03/marriage-the-next-chapter/marriage-how-moral-norms-evolve) It's a significant legal question which should not be discarded by attacks on people who make such comparisons.

I don't see why marriage between multiple people and/or people who are related should be prohibited though polygamy would probably be harder to deal with, practically speaking.

As a serious answer, polygamy leads to dicey questions regarding custody rights in divorce, inheritance, and all those other things.

Thanks for your answer, which makes sense to me. My point in posting in this thread was to show how problematic the use of the term "marriage equality" is if it is solely applied for same-sex marriages. While I may disagree with your point of view, it is certainly conclusive.

Bit of gymnastics there if you ask me. Man loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. Man loves man or woman loves woman, both not related = they get to marry. That is marriage equality by definition is it not? I've just filled out my registration forms for my civil parternship; it tells me precisely who I'm allowed to have the partnership with and who I can't. At present we allow people with heterosexual attractions under certain circumstances to marry each other. What is unequal is that people with homosexual attractions cannot because their attraction is to the same sex. Changing that = marriage equality. What has has incest or polygamy got to do with it?

The answer to your question is very simple: Despite the fact that incestuous and polygamous relationships have a long history - just like same-sex relationships - people who engage in these kinds of relationships still can't marry the people of their choice and are hardly ever mentioned even by proponents of gay marriage. This is a case of inequal treatment which does not change even if we introduce gay marriage across the board. I repeat: There is no "marriage equality" unless this changes and all forms or marriage are made legal, that's why the term "marriage equality" exclusively used in the context of same-sex relationships is odd.

That was all you needed to say....

Anyway, my position is that I'm not hugely in favour of marriage, like the military and so recently I've become very disappointed in the gays.

I take offense to those who are against it.

Why? I don't take offense against those who disagree with me.

lol

You think it's because they disagree with me, and not because it's members of a privileged class dictating what I can and cannot do based on their own questionable morals?

I'm reminded of a white man in the south of the 60s laughing away the notion that blacks might be equal.

Perhaps you think Holmes is "uppity"?


EDIT, Context:

Yeah, I was scrolling and attributed the "lol" to Rhodie.  Sorry Supersonic.

Corrected.

Supersonic is not against gay marriage, though.

It was in reference to Rhodie. Quotes are a bit off :/

So do you take it personally, or do you just resent them because they are keeping you from getting married? 

Pro-gay marriage, of course.

While there may be some legitimacy in comparing legalize gay marriages to incestuous marriages, polygamy is not at all analogous. Simply involving more than 2 people does make bureaucratic difficulty, if nothing else. Comparing gay marriage to polygamy is like saying that a whites-only restaurant with a capacity limit of 40 people, if required to serve blacks, would also be required to hold more than 40 people.

Pro gay marriage and those who deny it will happen in our lifetimes are kidding themselves. It will be nationally legal for homosexuals to marry before we die. Get out of the way, opponents, the train's coming and you don't want it to run your ass over.

It's both, but they're both rather tied together. Although I'm able to get married where I live, my boyfriend's home state wouldn't recognize it, and the US federal government wouldn't either.

It's clearly within our power to change it - we people of today write the laws of today. It's also clearly within our right to change it - we people of today do not have to be bound by the practices of our ancestors. A tradition is good or bad on its merits, not on the basis that it is a tradition.

Someone's optimistic about his longevity.

Where's the oxymoron option?

Both sides are idiots on this issue. Liberal civil rights advocates ought to be questioning why couples with a marital license from the state should receive special treatment in the first place, while conservative traditionalists ought to be questioning why the state is serving the role of Merriam-Webster on the subject in the first place.

Yeah, I was scrolling and attributed the "lol" to Rhodie.  Sorry Supersonic.

My response to the "oh well pretty soon people can marry donkeys/their sister" fallacy is: so what?

No problemo.

You would not make a good standard-bearer for the cause.

Indeed I won't.

Same with abortion.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Coming from the personal experience of my parents' ugly relationship, I can tell you there is something far worse for children than divorce. Living in a home where two parents are constantly at each others throats, spitting venom day after day, is toxic. I can still remember that blissful April day in 1993 when my dad moved to his own little house about a mile away. Close enough that I could walk between homes, but far enough apart to ensure some peace for all parties. All became right in the world. It is without a doubt one of the best moments of my childhood.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

That may be, but he certainly didn't pursue proper standards by marrying 700 women.

He's far from a unique case. Polygamy was rife throughout the Bible. And it wasn't held up as a model of immorality that God would strike you down for. It just was the way things were. Marriage has changed immeasurably since the days when a raped women was forced to marry her rapist because nobody else would then want her and she obviously couldn't take care of herself. Your point that marriage has never changed is 100% false.

Well no, I agree with you, but it was an understanding of marriage that existed at the time (although wasn't exactly encouraged), which is all anyone's trying to demonstrate by bringing him up.

Pro (normal).

...

Solomon's 700 wives thing was portrayed ferociously negatively.  He bankrupted the kingdom buying stuff for them, they got him to build temples for their false gods, and, well, Deuteronomy's rule put it best:


God ends up punishing him by stripping away half of the Kingdom under the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam, beginning a long feud between Rehoboam and his line-of-David descendants in Judah and the splitters in Israel.  You could say that the entire collapse of the golden age of the Biblical United Monarchy was due to Solomon having too many wives at once.

This summarizes my view quite nicely.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Forum needs a like button.

I was initially going to drop a generically pro-gay marriage post in this thread but reckoned this statement was very thoughtful. Perhaps it would be for the best if anyone could be partnered with whomever they want provided there is mutual consent and the relationship(s) in question don't involve a criminal degree of abuse or exploitation. Marriage is not an aspect of our culture in any serious need of stringent regulation or active measures promoting its preservation by the state, and I imagine having "small government" on most marriage-related issues would not be harmful.

I'm pro gay marriage.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

Which is dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY)

So about your rationale for scientific/natural law opposition...

There's no scientific basis for opposition, and 'natural law' is a religious concept.

Well, there is a scientific basis.  But it's stupid.

From what I understand, the argument is that since same-sex relationships don't produce offspring, they shouldn't be treated the same as opposite-sex relationships.  Because of course, all that matters is producing more little soldiers for the state.

If you think that gay couples shouldn't have the same rights as straight couples, you are bigoted against them, regardless of your reason.

I would think your argument would be that it's ok to be bigoted against gays, not that it's not bigotry?

So if someone disagrees with you then they don't know how to think for yourself?

At this point people who say that opposition to gay marriage is bigotry aren't saying anything, because they are just redefining bigotry to be synonymous with opposition to gay marriage.  It doesn't describe motivation or provide a logical argument.  It's lazy, and if you think you are convincing anyone of anything by throwing the term around, you are kidding yourself.

Let the gays marry. Why we are still having this debate is beyond me. Who on earth are they hurting by doing it? It's not like straight marriage is in great shape these days with half of marriages failing.

Exactly

Unless you are Jewish and only read the OT I am not getting how your faith can  make you opposed to gay marriage. The 2 times homosexuality are mentioned in the NT they are talking about just going out and having copious amounts of sex with just anybody, but it doesn't say anything about loving relationships.

I oppose gay marriage, but I support civil unions that give homosexuals equal benefits; just don't redefine marriage.

The majority of Jews ignore the law of Moses. Some Jews are even athiests.

Pro, duh.

All marriage should be banned, and we should have a Festival of Fornication in May every year.

Ah, so the old 'Separate, but equal' thing?

I support full marriage equality because marriage should be defined as a commitment between two persons to love and cherish one another. Gender shouldn't factor into that at all, nor should race (obviously).

I struggle with it. I myself am bisexual and don't think it is something that is biologically healthy, or something that should be validated. I won't lie to myself to make myself feel better about it. But I don't want it to cloud my judgement about constitutional rights and whatnot. I'm just not sure.

What do you mean? Pray tell.

P.S. Are you a Republican or a Greenie? Avatar confusion here!

I don't think it makes sense that it is not a genetic defect of some sort, although we don't all just to procreate, it is still without a doubt the natural reason for sexual attraction. Same sex attraction does not seem to serve a purpose naturally. People on the left seem to want to validate by making it the same thing as black vs white, it's not the same to me because there is no huge difference between races, or gender, there is no 'advantage' there. But people of the opposite sex can have children together, and people of the same sex cannot. So sexual orientation just doesn't make sense people looped in with those other things, and since same sex attraction serves no natural purpose (and actually hinders procreation for those who have it) it is a defect to me.

I change my avatar all the time, I don't label myself as anything.

You have to be a robot to think that sex is solely about procreation. Jus' sayin'.

Essentially yes. Biologists will tell you that it was a mistake to view sex as a means of procreation; it is also an act of social bonding. Given that same sex attraction and sex is found in all observed species that have sex by procreation separated by at least 100 million years of evolution (therefore we can conclude animals have been doing it for millions of years) it is natural (though not common) and by extension biological state. To view it as 'defective' is a human construct not a reality.

Why do gays need marriage?

(apologies for offending anyone, I'm not trying to troll you into an angry response, I just don't understand why, with civil partnerships, gays need to be married)

For the same reason straight people need marriage?

In fairness, there were never any laws that said gays couldn't be married, just that they couldn't marry whoever they wanted.

As a straight person, I think it's incredibly condescending that we've created this bizarre separate class for gay people.  For ages, I've never had my potential relationship held up to strict scrutiny.  Now that gay marriage has come up, people are bending over backwards to define gays out of the things we associate with marriage.  If marriage has a reason to exist, it has reason to benefit gays (and society by extension.)  If it doesn't, we are still being jerks by not extending the symbolic treatment to dedicated gay couples.

The idea that the highly dedicated gay couples I know -- many who have children -- should be denied equal government recognition because of some abstract normative concept of marriage, or because of vague demographic reasons, is just totally laughable to me.  The only things that distinguishes this from anti-miscegenation laws, to me, are uncompelling arguments about biology (not that we straights have ever been judged for marrying without children) and fallacious appeals to tradition.

It's not that gay marriage is a big deal.  It's just that it's one of a tiny number of public policy issues where I genuinely believe one side has an obviously superior argument.

Semantics tricks don't get you anywhere here.

this.

Exactly (I agree as a Christian).

And if you want to go by "traditional marriage" in the bible, then women who are raped should have to be having their father pay the rapist who will then go forth to marry her.

There is no logical reason to oppose the legalization of same sex marriages.  If your church or institution doesn't want to perform the ceremony, fine, but I have yet to see a logical argument for outlawing it all together.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage.  I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman.  For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue.  Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

Actual gay marriage: couldn't give a damn

Legal discrimination: anti

Then don't allow civil marriage in general and make marriage solely religious. Either everyone is allowed to get a civil marriage or no one is.

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

This revisionism is sad... but predictable.

Whether he's pro-polygamy is actually irrelevant, since he would probably refer to such relationships as "marriages" even if he opposes them. The law typically refers to such unions as marriages even while it criminalizes them. Therefore the term is clearly a matter of language rather then legal/moral acceptance.

Conservatives should really stop using the Bible as a moral shield for anything and everything.

Wouldn't support my pastor performing homosexual marriages...

That said, why are we making the government play dictionary in the first place?

anti gay marriage but im not homophobic

Why are you anti-gay marriage?  It doesn't really matter if you're homophobic or not -- that doesn't preclude your position from being wrong.

So do you support Civil Unions?

...

I'm going to say this again: If you oppose gay marriage, then you oppose gay couples having the same rights as straight ones. That's homophobia, pure and simple.

Pro, and it is one of the easiest issues to decide for me.

Not necessarily. I oppose gay marriage but I also oppose straight marriage, so gay couples would have the same rights as straight ones and yet there would be no (state-recognized) gay marriage.

Yes, that's a very popular opinion around here and you're not the only one who has it, but it's not politically viable and not how your vote would translate in an actual referendum on gay marriage.

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage.  For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one.  Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

Then it isn't equal. 'Seperate but equal' isn't genuine equality. I do find it out how defensive people get over marriage. 1 in 3 marriages in the western world ends in divorce; it's THE most annulled legal contract people can enter into. Not only that, people can enter into it twice, three, four, five times in their lives. People can get married for money, for a passport, for an inheritance, for fame or for a magazine spread. People get married under coercion, or under force.

As an exclusive plaything for straight couples on the whole it's been cheapened. Individual marriages though make it all worthwhile. The idea that the marriage of two men or two women is going to threaten or 'redefine' marriage is absurd. It get's 'redefined' every day the moment someone enters into it for a dishonest reason or runs away from it for no reason at all.

How is Kim Kardashians 72 day marriage more 'worthy' because she was a woman and the other person was a man than say Michael Stark and Michael Leshner who married in Canada in 2003 after 22 years together?

Obviously it's unreasonable to define a civil contract based on the religious beliefs of some people.

1.yes i support civil unions
2.im in favor of gay adoption rights and hospital visitation rights

Pro but only because I'm genre savy.

Does calling your relationship "marriage" count as a benefit?

We get that you're against gay marriage, but why?  Why do you folks think there's a compelling enough reason to deny gay folks the access to a word of considerable personal importance -- at the governmental level, at that?

I'm sorry to be pushy, but this is an issue where the opposing arguments just seem so obviously awful to me.  It's one of the only issues.

It's equal in everything except name.

But why the distinction?

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting.  It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

It's not meant to be discriminatory.  It's giving them equal rights without redefining a religious term.

The state is not religious, and marriage is not exclusively a religious term. Churches may define it as they wish , of course.

Do you have any secular argument against total equality?

Marriage is not a religious term. No Communist state, no matter how militantly Atheist or Totalitarian, no matter what other traditional social structures they sought to uproot, ever attempted to abolish marriage.

It's not currently a religious term in this context.

Pro.

Gay?

Pro Gay Marriage

Pro gay marriage and indeed believe that any number of consenting adults should be allowed to be entered into a civil marriage with no restrictions beyond being an adult and all parties consenting to all other parties being part of the civil marriage. I also strongly believe that religious institutions should have the choice as to what kinds of marriages are allowed to take place in their churches.

Government should not be playing dictionary on this matter. If it was my church, no.

oh man just stop no

as for my own views, i think marriage should be privatized. don't see why people can't draw up their own contracts rather than getting the state involved constantly, in what's an artificial institution to begin with. so yeah, that'd mean i'm pro-gay marriage and pro-polygamy.

so you believe it was wrong to change marriage so you can't sell your daughter for livestock? come on man.

there is no way i would ever ever ever ever support gay marriage

If you think marriage is a religious institution, and that it can only be between males and females, good for you. The government has no business telling you that your opinion is wrong, nor does it have any opinion telling me and everyone else in the country that your opinion on marriage is correct to the point where it should be law. This "marriage as a religious institution" stuff should stay in churches - where it belongs.

If you are a member of a religion who thinks that marriage is only between one man and one woman, then believe that. Allowing gays to get married would not change anything, because no church would be required to marry them. They can get a secular ceremony if they want.

The big point here is this: If, according to your religion, marriage is between just a male and a female, then your church can freely refuse to perform religious marriage ceremonies between same sex partners. The two guys, or two girls, can just go somewhere else and get a non-religious ceremony, or a ceremony from a religion that allows them to get married. If this is TRULY an issue of religious definition, then the issue can stay in the church, and religious leaders can debate if they want to accept same sex marriage among their denomination. The government can recognize same sex marriage, but this doesn't mean your religion has to. If you don't want to recognize my marriage, then come up and tell me on the street and we'll have a good laugh about the whole thing.

How can you support gay marriage? what are you a socialist leftist who wants to destroy the white race.

Gay marriage hasn't very much to do with the white race, which doesn't really exist as a coherent entity outside our heads anyway.

Nathan you make no sense.

Is there anything in particular that you're having trouble with? I can break this down with you if you'd like.

Nathan im okey buddy

Why? Is civil marriage only valuable as an institution insofar as it can be used to signify nondiscrimination?   Is civil marriage not valuable in itself?   Maybe you can see why traditionalists see this sort of thinking as a threat to the institution of marriage itself.

I support gay marriage, but it is precisely because I believe marriage is a valuable institution and want more people to have the opportunity to enter into it. If you don't believe that, what's the point?