Frosstbyte

I tire of this argument. The logic is simple. If you have no problems with gays, then they are just like everyone else with the exception of one attribute. It's like me saying I have no problem with people with brown hair. They exist, they do their thing, I couldn't care less what color their hair is. It's just a part of what makes up other people with whom I interact.

The fact that you want to deprive them of a right/privilege that you think is fine for everyone else means that you think of them differently. And that difference degrades their status in your eyes because they don't deserve whatever right/privilege you don't want them to have. So when you say you have no problems with gays, you don't actually mean you have no problems with gays. The fact that they are gay, to you, means they're not good enough to get married because their condition is unnatural or wrong or something to that effect.

I suppose I threw around the word bigot a little loosely earlier. I don't mean you gay-bash or won't interact with gay people or actively hate them, but it's patently untrue that you don't have any problems with them. You're seeking to deprive them of something they desperately want and, as far as the law is concerned, is a civil right in this country. You're entitled to that opinion, but you can't hold that opinion and simultaneously have NO problems with gays. They're mutually exclusive conditions.

Also when I said "a church" (as opposed to the church) I meant a religious institution, as opposed to the Christian Church. Guess I should've used less specific nomenclature.