Protestant against gay marriage, but I support civil unions.
How is 2004 treating you? 
I don't really see how that position (one which I also happen to hold) is rendered as being irrelevant by the the fact it was more popular in 2004 than today?
Given that equal marriage will take effect from March in England and Wales (and hopefully in Scotland too) the position you hold will in effect so be that of supporting the downgrading of a same sex marriage; i.e the revocation of rights. Not the 2004 'moderate heroish' plan of giving gays some recognition in law. As someone who will be re-registering his civil partnership as a marriage it seems to be a strange position for someone to hold given the political reality of equal marriage in both the USA and the UK.
Maybe from a practical perspective you're right. Nevertheless, in my heart, I remain opposed to gay marriage, and there's nothing that can be done to shift that basic unease.
Maybe if you get to know the life of a married gay couple from meeting, to settling down, to nursing each other through illness and through into death you might change your mind. If you still judge their commitment by their sexuality rather that it's inner worth then you have quite a cold heart.
I don't deny that gays can have deeply committed relationships, but that does not really factor into my view as to whether they should be married (I would deny the same opportunity to a thrice married man who is in a genuinely committed relationship with a woman). My view is based upon what marriage is, in my view, basically for, which is to provide a core around which a family can grow. Now, I oppose gay adoptions and the provision of IVF for gays (a view which I'll probably have to go into more detail on later, and therefore, of course, gays wouldn't be able to have families under thse conditions. So, we still have civil partnerships on hand, which, if raised to provide similar benefits to marriage, offer a perfectly acceptable (in my view) alternative to marriage, which I believe is a very different institution for a very different purpose.
So you believe that the purpose of marriage is to provide a core around which a family can develop. You believe that the government should intervene into the lives of private citizens in order to prevent gay relationships from serving as that core. Therefore, since the government has prevented gay couples from raising a family, they should not be allowed to marry, as raising a family is the primary purpose of marriage.
Does anyone else get a heavy "evil genius" vibe off this post?
Poll
