When did I say what you just said?
Do you think that's true? I think that the vast majority of those voting against gay marriage would be religious folks who, not homophobic, just take their belief in religion, literally; those who are set in their ways and do not understand that this would not affect them; or those who believe that there should not be special privileges for any people who are married. I don't think that homophobes make up the vast majority, that's why I like my statement, better. Do you have evidence that shows me incorrect? Again, I am open to this being possible.
I know you weren't necessarily citing it as your own opinion, but it is what I was referring to.
And that would be your opinion. Do you have anything to back up this claim?
1. Marriage is not a purely religious institution, but a legal one. As such, it falls under the equal protection clauses of the US and most State Constitutions. While I personally don't care what the law says, the legal basis for gay marriage is well-established by the analogous legal battle over anti-miscegenation, culminating in Loving v. Virginia which struck down laws against interracial marriage despite overwhelming public opinion against the decision. Some would argue that anti-miscegenation was based upon race, but it discriminated against both Blacks and Whites as a White man could not marry a Black woman if he wanted to. In reality, it was discriminatory against a specific sexual orientation, much like laws against gay marriage.
2. Logically, the equal protection clauses are critical. Equal justice under the law is a critical component of the law if the public is going to maintain any respect for it, and for the law to make society function more optimally by minimizing the creation of its own injustices. The law may never be perfect, but so long as it strives to treat people equally it will maximize fairness, justice, and a better society.
3. It is a ridiculous idea that legalizing gay marriage will force churches to marry gays. The Mormons weren't required to marry Black people after Loving v. Virginia, any church will still be able to marry or not marry whoever they want.
4. It is ridiculous that traditional marriage components argue from tradition, which is a fallacy.
5. It is furthermore ridiculous that they argue it will undermine the sanctity of marriage, as marriage is a legal contract that can only be "sanctified" by those involved in it. Sanctified marriage never existed, institutionally, as people were forced to marry for economic reasons before, people sometimes marry for sex alone today, people of other faiths have usually had some form of marriage (not always monogamous or heterosexual, either), and at least half of marriages end before either die. There is no inherent sanctity in marriage, it must be created in every marriage. Otherwise, marriage is just a civil contract, and that's all it needs to be as far as the law is concerned.
6. It is also ridiculous that they try to make marriage about children, because not all marriages, even between religious people, involve children.