See, that's exactly my point, most people who dislike the concept of gay-marriage do so because if allowed by the federal government they imply that as an endorsement of gay-marriage. They can tolerate a certain amount of "gayness" as long as it's not made official. So, if you remove the government (especially the federal gov't) from the situation and privatize marriage, you remove much of the basis for objection in the first place. I mean logically, if marriage is "between a man and a woman" based on religious (or cultural) reasons, let the churches (or states) decide who can marry or not marry. I still haven't seen any valid reason for the federal gov't to be deciding who should be eligible for marriage or not.Originally posted by: csf
You can't just flip flop the argument to say "why shouldn't they?" The status quo is that marriage is a union between a single man and a single woman (since this decision may inevitably slide the slippery slope down to polygamy, as anyone who knows basic American legal history will tell you) and homosexuality is still considered an abnormal societal trait that the public may not be willing to endorse (yes I've seen recent poll numbers so I know how it looks). The point is, the burden of proof is to ask why a major overhaul of law and society must be done so urgently to allow gay marriage, and so far there really is no argument out there than "why not?" or "YOU'RE A HOMOPHOBE WAH WAH WAH."
By the way, tolerating and endorsing are two different things. You can be tolerant of homosexuality and dislike it and be against gay marriage: in fact the very nature of the word "tolerate" implies this. So contrary to what a lot of the PC types would like to say, being against gay marriage is not intolerant at all.