An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom

[MinorityofOne]

Originally Posted by Shane Roach

How are they at all similar? Go through each and explain to me how they are exactly the same, can you?

That didn't really answer my question, but sure, I can talk about their similarities. I'll be brief, because I really don't want to lecture you.

FINANCIALLY: I really don't understand how homosexuals have different financial situations than heterosexuals. They've got bills to pay, same as you and I (presumably). Some make more money, some make less money.

CULTURALLY: You say they have a different 'cultural situation', which I agree with.

BIOLOGICALLY: There's nothing different biologically between a homosexual man and a heterosexual man outside of sexual preference (and perhaps DNA, but that's a different argument for a different time).

Ultimately it is access to resources is really all I am talking about, and gave an example already. Maybe if you were more precise in your question? I really have no idea what exactly you're asking.

I missed your example - I did not read most of the previous pages in this post. In a way, this answered my question, though. Thanks.

<staff edit>

 

[Inviolable]

<staff edit>

While I agree that it is their sexual preference that sets them apart, I wonder if it can be explained exactly how far apart and what precautions might be needed to be taken because of the difference.

 

[MinorityofOne]

While I agree that it is their sexual preference that sets them apart, I wonder if it can be explained exactly how far apart and what precautions might be needed to be taken because of the difference.

The same precautions Asian Americans take against Black Americans because of their differences.

Also, they are precisely this far apart:

l---------------l (+/- 100 'give a yam' )

 

[Inviolable]

The same precautions Asian Americans take against Black Americans because of their differences.

Also, they are precisely this far apart:

l---------------l (+/- 100 'give a yam' )

Everyone knows that homosexuality isn't related to an ethnic problem.
It's more closely related to a frame of mind. One that can't be changed.
It isn't skin color or nationality that sets homosexuals apart from everyone else.
It's a life style.

 

[Shane Roach]

A. What is the difference then, between calling such unions "marriages" and calling them "civil unions"

It creates a completely different framework for the law to evolve without presenting the difficulty of having the two separate types of relationships constantly pulling the same set of laws in different directions.

B. How is whether or not to allow people access to equal rights NOT a civil rights issue?

You choose to frame it this way, and in doing so make a conflict with freedom of religion that is unnecessary. No one is in truth being denied equality. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are, by their very nature, different, and thus would likely require at least slightly different legislation to deal fairly with those differences.

Huh?

Well I think I did... I gave a reason I think gay marriage would be good, and I stated I don't think it will have any negatives. I don't wish to derail the thread, but who is actually trying to undermine marriage? How is ENLARGING the number of people who can and will get married going to undermine it? In what possible way do you see single parent familys as being analogous with homosexual couples?

You are enlarging it by redefining it to include people whose relationships are not at all similar in practice. The only similarity is affection and sex, neither of which are of much consequence to family law.

I did not bring up single parents, but since you ask, one of the several reasons single parents are not as good for kids and society is that the kids are going to lack the experience of having a family model in their youth. They then have to piece it together from the ground up if they ever are to be married. I believe this deconstruction of the family, this constant re-invention of the wheel that liberals keep bringing to the floor in political issues, makes it harder and harder to maintain peace and civility. Slowly, people simply do not share anything in common anymore, and the bonds that hold a society together are strained.

Is that "you" in the generalist sense, or directed at me personally? Because I certainly don't think I am a member of the far left. I am a political and military conservative, an "paleo-conservative" some would say. I am not advocating anything particularly leftist. Allowing homosexuals to marry is essentially a LIBERTARIAN (see Far Right) position.

It seems no one wants to claim Libertarians, which is probably why they have a small party of their own now. I consider them to basically encompass some of the worst of both liberal and conservative thought myself, but that's just my personal politics and value judgment.

To argue that gay marriage is some sort of conservative agenda is really to strain credulity though.

If gays stopped agitating for change, you really think they would suddenly start getting equal treatment? Sadly, history shows that, um, well this is never the case. Honestly, I'm doing my best here, but I can't honestly think of a single example were a group has improved their status and been given access to equal rights through quietly waiting for change to happen.

I very plainly did not say to sit quietly and wait for change. Please do not continue to simply ignore what I write. We seem to be making slow progress towards actually being able to talk. Please look at what I actually did write and see if there is anything you have to say about the idea of addressing individual issues on their own merits rather than trying to usurp an institution that appears to have been clearly designed specifically for heterosexual couples and their family issues.

I thought the third article was best too. I'm not saying that love NEVER occured/s in an aranged marriage, the position is that in arranged marriages, love is seen as, at best, a desirable extra, but not fundamentally important to the contract.The middle ages are not your friend here. Consider the ideal of "courtly love", which was considered the highest form of "true" love during the middle ages... which was considered possible ONLY between a married woman and a bachelor, and hinged on the presumed fact that she was not in love with her husband. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love

These matters are constantly bedeviled with the (forgive my anti-establismentarianism here) presumptuous nature of academics. One need not look far into the colloquial art and music of the times to see that love was alive and well in Medieval times, but most scholarship focuses on the habits of the wealthy, and really of the extremely wealthy.

https://www.wsu.edu/~brians/love-in-the-arts/western_wind.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmina_Burana
Truly, in the season of springStands above the withering treesweet Juliana with her sister. Sweet love! He who is without you in this season Is worthless. Behold the trees bloom,Birds are singing lustily;Among them, the girls are cooling off. Sweet love! He who is without you in this season Is worthless. Behold the lilies bloom,And throngs of virgins givesongs to the highest of the gods. Sweet love! He who is without you in this season Is worthless. If I could hold the girl I loveIn the forest under the leaves,I would kiss her with joy. Sweet love! He who is without you in this season Is worthless."

And you have completely bypassed my scriptural references.

The entire Song of Solomon stands in stark contrast to assertions that love had nothing to do with ancient marriage. There's no support for the assertion that Old Testament marriage had nothing to do with love.

Tell me, are you being picky about citations because you are interested in learning, or because you really don't want to believe what I'm telling you?

I'm being "picky" because most of what you are saying is assertion without any real knowledge. I am hoping the various additional tidbits of information I am giving will show you why I doubt your assertions, even if they do not necessarily disprove whatever it is you believe.

So what if it barely exists in history? Universal literacy, universal suffrage and universal emancipation are virtually unkonwn to history, yet I assume you don't oppose them? Just saying "its always been that way" is not, in itself, sufficient arguement.

It's always been that way is not my argument at all. You seem to be asserting that there is no difference between gays and straights, so my question is, why in all of history has this not been acknowledged? You also fail to acknowledge the very simple and straightforward problem I have with your arguments, which is that homosexuality is ultimately defined as a behavior, not a color or gender, or even a culture. I believe it strikes at the very heart of self-government to just begin to assign civil rights status to every liberty you find offensive. Ultimately, even the most universally recognized "criminal behaviors" are only so because people hold the opinion that they are so. There has to be some recognition that every issue is not to be punted to the courts to be decided how you believe is best. What happens when the court changes and suddenly your values are no longer the ones they are attacking willy nilly?

The court is not the place for creating the consensus necessary for a society to work and thrive. Nations need to form consensus on important matters.

You said I had not presented any argument for gay marriage. I say I have, but I'll try to clarify

1. Most important, gays WANT to be married. I believe denying people the personal freedom to do what they want is abhorent without a darn good reason

You have yet to explain why the fears I have expressed are unfounded, other than to simply mock at them repeatedly.

2. Homosexuals are currently being denied benefits and protections that they would recieve if they were recognised as married, for example, my friends posting issue, your hospital visitation issue, and other similar ones, like right to superannuation, rights to protection in event of divorce, sick leave, parental leave and bereavment leave, the list goes on. These people put the same work and effort into their relationships as heterosexuals are assumed to do, they should have the same protections and benefits.

Most of these are very specific to having children. The majority of homosexuals will not have them. When they do, there are extenuating circumstances. The laws need to be fitted to this specific, unique case and not just fused with established law on the matter. That's my concern.

Other than the liklihood of naturally concieved children (and thats not an absolute) how is a gay marriage like relationship different to a heterosexual marriage like relationship?

How are they similar? In no way except that they cohabit and have sex. There is nothing else that is the same. If you believe they are identical, you give the specifics. You constantly try to place yourself in the position of authority, and others have to answer to you, but we don't have to. That is part of what discussion is supposed to be about. You should be able to take your turn at the explanation phase of these discussions rather than just dismissing other people's beliefs out of hand and constantly demanding they provide you with explanations.

Hopefully I have provided at least some. let's see where we go from here.

You were saying that compromise is good enough to resolve issues... well, how about slavery? How about women's suffrage? Would compromise have been sufficient in those areas?

As I have said, these "solutions" actually are compromise. Women still are not equal to men. Slavery is alive and well. You blind yourself to the extent most of modern "progress" is merely a redefinition of terms, which is to a great extent precisely my problem with your "solution" here.

Redefine marriage, problem solved? Only, the same people who hated gays yesterday will hate them the day after the law changes.

You need to combat prejudice, if this is really what you believe this is all about, by confronting people in their minds and hearts, not in the courts.

 

[Shane Roach]

That didn't really answer my question, but sure, I can talk about their similarities. I'll be brief, because I really don't want to lecture you.

FINANCIALLY: I really don't understand how homosexuals have different financial situations than heterosexuals. They've got bills to pay, same as you and I (presumably). Some make more money, some make less money.

Divorce laws were changed supposedly to allow women freedom to leave abusive relationships. As it turns out, women still stay in abusive relationships, and in fact statistically it is more likely a woman will be abused by a live in than by her husband. If you feel this needs changing, you might be interested to know that some families do not. So we need ways to protect both parties in a traditional woman-stays-home sort of marriage, one for woman-works-but-lacks-career-advancement, and woman has a career. We need the same for men in reverse.

Where do gays fit into this? Who's expected to do what, when? Are there even kids? What claims does a gay man really have on a partner morally, given that they both ought to have the exact same opportunities?

One of the reasons people hypothesize this is still so is that the real reason they do not leave is fear (the man is larger and typically more aggressive) and financial concerns (to this day men tend to make more money).

Explain to me now how this is exactly the same for homosexual couples? Because I find that to be a massive strain to my credulity, no offense meant. The relationships are on utterly different footing.

CULTURALLY: You say they have a different 'cultural situation', which I agree with.

I think this relates to the above. Expectations of a man and a woman are to have kids. If one of them is to put a halt on their career or choose a career amenable to parenting, it is often the woman, and this is to this day reflected somewhat in family law.

BIOLOGICALLY: There's nothing different biologically between a homosexual man and a heterosexual man outside of sexual preference (and perhaps DNA, but that's a different argument for a different time).

This is the most obvious of all. Neither of them is the opposite sex. Neither is going to be uniquely the mother to the other's father, and vice versa. Almost all of family law is or was at one time based on the unique relationships of men and women to each other. What changes there have been have not yet been accurately reflected in our current family law, and adding homosexual relationships to that mix just confuses the issue further.

How many of us do not know of a disastrously unfair divorce decision? And it cuts both ways. Men get the shaft one time, women the other. The whole thing is well nigh broken, and in fits of honesty people will bare their souls on this issue, then come right back the next day and claim there has been this massive progress.

No there hasn't! You just have air conditioning, so it doesn't bother you as much... (That's... supposed to be a joke...)

I don't actually believe in the very concept of cultural progress. We have made material progress. Nothing else is really much better, and people are by and large pretty nasty to one another. That's been my experience anyhow.

Which may explain why I am single a little better than accusing me of being gay............ while we're on a related subject.

I'm just saying.

 

[Shane Roach]

A loving, committed long term, mutually supportive, mutually consented to relationship between two people with a presumed sexual intimacy.

You tell me if that describes a marriage or a homosexual civil union?

It certainly does not describe the totality of marriage. Not to me.

 

[LightHorseman]

Shane, I appreciate your consideration.

It creates a completely different framework for the law to evolve without presenting the difficulty of having the two separate types of relationships constantly pulling the same set of laws in different directions.

Why? In what fashion would family law as it satands not fit homosexual couples as well as it fits heterosexual couples? Again, specifics please?

You choose to frame it this way, and in doing so make a conflict with freedom of religion that is unnecessary. No one is in truth being denied equality. Heterosexual and homosexual relationships are, by their very nature, different, and thus would likely require at least slightly different legislation to deal fairly with those differences.

I don't see it as an issue of religious freedom, its an issue of equality and sexual discrimination, which are also civil rights issues. We have a group of people who are being denied the right to do what they want to do based on gender. How is this NOT a civil rights issue?

You are enlarging it by redefining it to include people whose relationships are not at all similar in practice. The only similarity is affection and sex, neither of which are of much consequence to family law.

And long term commitment. Seriously, what are the differences between a homosexual couple and a hetero one? And don't say ability to have children, as it has already been established that infertile heterosexuals are perfectly entitled to get married. So please, tell me... maybe if I understood how homosexuals are so different to heterosexuals, I'd agree more with your argument, but as it is, I just see couples in a long term loving relationship, one lot of whom are denied rights the other lot has access to.

I did not bring up single parents,

Um, yes you did. Do I need to go back and quote you? You said something to the effect that "single parents have already done enough damage to this once great nation of ours, and now the homosexuals want to finish destroying marriage"

They then have to piece it together from the ground up if they ever are to be married. I believe this deconstruction of the family, this constant re-invention of the wheel that liberals keep bringing to the floor in political issues, makes it harder and harder to maintain peace and civility. Slowly, people simply do not share anything in common anymore, and the bonds that hold a society together are strained.

"constant reinvention of the wheel"... once again, you seem to be falling into the trap of thinking that 1950s middle class America is the social norm for all of history... when you talk about "traditional" families, I assume you are talking about the nuclear family? Which is almost exactly as traditional as marrying for love. Once again, for the vast bulk of human history, families have lived in an extended family format, the nuclear family is a quite new phenomenon.

I point this out because it irks me that much of the wailing about the loss of "traditional family values", is actually about family values and models that are no more traditional than the motor car.

It seems no one wants to claim Libertarians, which is probably why they have a small party of their own now. I consider them to basically encompass some of the worst of both liberal and conservative thought myself, but that's just my personal politics and value judgment.

To argue that gay marriage is some sort of conservative agenda is really to strain credulity though.

And yet here I am, a political old school conservative, speaking in favour of consentual homosexual marriage. Make of that what you will.

I very plainly did not say to sit quietly and wait for change. Please do not continue to simply ignore what I write. We seem to be making slow progress towards actually being able to talk. Please look at what I actually did write and see if there is anything you have to say about the idea of addressing individual issues on their own merits rather than trying to usurp an institution that appears to have been clearly designed specifically for heterosexual couples and their family issues.

Well, it sure looked to me like thats what you were saying. However, I accept the possibility I may have understood. So please, why not correct me and explain how you think homosexuals should agitate for change?

These matters are constantly bedeviled with the (forgive my anti-establismentarianism here) presumptuous nature of academics. One need not look far into the colloquial art and music of the times to see that love was alive and well in Medieval times, but most scholarship focuses on the habits of the wealthy, and really of the extremely wealthy.

a problem with the study of history is that those who recorded it tended to record that which was most relevent to their own class. Thus the chronicles of the middle ages tend to exclusively refer to the first 2 estates, as they were the ones who were a. literate and b. could afford scribes. However, if you would please take me at my word, mediaeval history is my passion (I even spell mediaeval correctly!) so please believe me when I say I am not basing this position on a 5 second scan of a wikipedia article.

Once again, of course there has always been love. My point is that throughout most of history, love has NOT been the primary motivation for marriage, but rather it has been a form of formalised contract and an attempt ensure a bloodline.

Another example just occured to me... the event that basically allowed Western protestantism to begin was the schism between Henry VIII and Rome over the issue of his divorce. He didn't want a divorce because he was in love withsome one else, he wanted a divorce because of his wife's failure to produce a male heir.

Now it is true we don't know exactly how the peasantry conducted themselves for much of times past, but "as above so below" has always been something of a truism, and it seems fair to assume that those lower in the hierarchy have always (as they do today) aped the fashions and practices of their social superiors. Once again, none of this denies the existance of love, merely points out that love was not the primary motivator for marriage. I mean, can you cite me a single example from the first 5 books of the Bible were marriage for love is even alluded to, let alone discussed?

I'm being "picky" because most of what you are saying is assertion without any real knowledge. I am hoping the various additional tidbits of information I am giving will show you why I doubt your assertions, even if they do not necessarily disprove whatever it is you believe.

well thats a rather unfair claim, given that I have been able to back up all of my assertions with external citations, and even you yourself seemed to admit that what I am saying is in line with the thinking of "academe"... now of course, style yourself anti-establishment all you like, however I'll tend to believe what I can see evidence for and what comes from reasonable sources, I try not to belive things simply because they suit what I want to be true.

It's always been that way is not my argument at all.

And yet you keep saying that heterosexual marriage has been the norm in most societies for most of time. Sounds like an argument from tradition to me...

You seem to be asserting that there is no difference between gays and straights, so my question is, why in all of history has this not been acknowledged?

Well, in some places it has been acknowledged. For all the times and places it hasn't, it hasn't been acknowledged because the contemporary social setting did not allow for or encourage such introspection on the matter(posting continues, don't reply yet)

 

[Shane Roach]

No, you didn’t. no one was able to actually present anything that was not / is not used to justify racism, bans on interracial marriage and/or anti-Semitism

Yes yes, according to you, with no support. I thought we covered this already.

You claimed: “It is almost assuredly not inborn” which the APA did not say at all.

So will you please cite evidence supporting your claim about what is and what is not “inborn”

You should be able to understand paraphrasing. I will not be dragged into an endless cycle of "yes it is" "no it isn't" with you. I gave you an explanation. If you care to refute it, feel free. Stop trying to pretend I did not show you though the exact site and exact sentence where the APA states it is not 100% genetic or inborn.

I asked (and it is rather odd I should have to repeat this as you manage to quote what I asked even though you are stating something I did not ask) for an explanation as to why infertile heterosexuals should not be discriminated against





It doesn’t explain it at all.

It doesn’t explain it at all.
And you seem unable or unwilling to explain why the ability to biologically reproduce should be a justification for discrimination against same gendered couples but not a justification for discrimination against infertile heterosexuals

In which case you should be able to vocalize why you do not understand it as an explanation. I have explained it twice now, and all I know of your beliefs could fill a thimble.

 

[Shane Roach]

Lighthorseman,

It's like... 2 AM here. I have to bug out. If I forget to return to this (seems unlikely, but stranger things have happened), and you really want me to answer, feel free to PM and return my attention to it.

Thanks.

 

[LightHorseman]

You also fail to acknowledge the very simple and straightforward problem I have with your arguments, which is that homosexuality is ultimately defined as a behavior, not a color or gender, or even a culture.

So? Being left handed is a behaviour as well, does that mean we can arbitrarily deny rights to left handers?

I believe it strikes at the very heart of self-government to just begin to assign civil rights status to every liberty you find offensive.

And i believe that true liberty exists when you defend the liberties of others... EVEN THE ONES YOU FIND OFFENSIVE, which is what I believe i am doing here.

Ultimately, even the most universally recognized "criminal behaviors" are only so because people hold the opinion that they are so. There has to be some recognition that every issue is not to be punted to the courts to be decided how you believe is best. What happens when the court changes and suddenly your values are no longer the ones they are attacking willy nilly?

I would hope that no one is attacking anyone's values "willy nilly". I acknowledge that homosexuality is something you believe in. I am "attacking", if you will, your values because I believe the right of homosexuals to have equality and justice supercedes your right to dictate to others how they live their lives.

The court is not the place for creating the consensus necessary for a society to work and thrive. Nations need to form consensus on important matters.

Indeed, and thus, there is a SOCIAL CONSENSUS that EQUALITY is a good thing. Then the courts have been tending to point out where equality is lacking. Sometimes they point out that equality is lacking from areas that people don't like to examine too closely, but, as you say, the social consensus is that equality is to be the standard, and they make their judgements accordingly.

You have yet to explain why the fears I have expressed are unfounded, other than to simply mock at them repeatedly.

Again, the burden of evidence lies with the person making the positive claim. You are claiming these fears are realistic, it is up to you to provide supporting evidence.

How would you have me prove them false, other than pointing out the complete lack of any supporting evidence for them?

Most of these are very specific to having children. The majority of homosexuals will not have them. When they do, there are extenuating circumstances. The laws need to be fitted to this specific, unique case and not just fused with established law on the matter. That's my concern.

So why not extend the child specific laws to the homosexuals who have kids... and the non child specific laws to the gays who DON'T have kids? Again, I fail to see the problem here? Just treat the same way we would treat heterosexuals who either have kids or don't have kids.

How are they similar? In no way except that they cohabit and have sex.

And that they love each other and make a commitment to be together through thick and thin... honestly, other than having kids, how is that NOT a marriage? In what fashion other than the children bit are hetero and homosexual couples different? You claim they are so very different, please show me how.

You constantly try to place yourself in the position of authority, and others have to answer to you, but we don't have to. That is part of what discussion is supposed to be about. You should be able to take your turn at the explanation phase of these discussions rather than just dismissing other people's beliefs out of hand and constantly demanding they provide you with explanations.

I'm happy to provide explanations when asked. I thought I already did. Let me try again...

"Monogomous, loving, mutually supporting, mutually consenting long term committed couple who are also sexually intimate".

Did I just describe a gay or straight marriage?

 

[Andreusz]

<staff edit>

We are sexually attracted to, and fall in love with, members of our own sex.

 

[Andreusz]

While I agree that it is their sexual preference that sets them apart, I wonder if it can be explained exactly how far apart

37.85 metres.

and what precautions might be needed to be taken because of the difference.

Precautions? Beware of the evil homosexuals, we're coming to get you!

 

[Inviolable]

We are sexually attracted to, and fall in love with, members of our own sex.

Yeah, I understand that.
I'm not holding it against you. What I would like to know is if homosexuals are capable of understanding how that could effect someone who isn't homosexual?
If you can't then that's really the only thing I have to hold against homosexuals.
I'm not saying it's your fault you are who you are. But I am saying, you have a responsibility to understand how homosexuality can be viewed by people and how it can effect your relationship with them.

 

[Inviolable]

37.85 metres.



Precautions? Beware of the evil homosexuals, we're coming to get you!

Just as I thought, homosexuals are evil.

 

[LightHorseman]

I'm not saying it's your fault you are who you are. But I am saying, you have a responsibility to understand how homosexuality can be viewed by people and how it can effect your relationship with them.

Do you have a responsibility to understand how your attitude can be viewed by people and how it can effect your relationship with them?

 

[MinorityofOne]

Stuff.

Ah, you were talking about homosexual relationships, not just homosexual people. Ok, thanks - that cleared up a lot.

I don't have too much to say in response to your post, since I agree with most of it. However, I predict that most of the questions you've raised will be answered, in time, as homosexuality becomes more socially acceptable.

Also, just to clear the air, it wasn't my intention to 'accuse' you of being gay, haha. That makes it sounds like I was trying to offend you, which wasn't the case. I was genuinely curious about your sexuality, because I personally know an older, gay man who chooses to be completely celibate in order to repress his 'sinful' urges. He'll even argue against things like gay marriage and gay priests on the rare occasions that I hear him debating someone else. I wasn't sure if you were like him (celibate, but with homosexual urges). That's it. Seriously.

Everyone knows that homosexuality isn't related to an ethnic problem.
It's more closely related to a frame of mind. One that can't be changed.
It isn't skin color or nationality that sets homosexuals apart from everyone else.
It's a life style.

...it's part of someone's lifestyle, yes. They aren't asking for special rights/privileges, generally - they're just asking to be treated like everyone else.

 

[Inviolable]

Do you have a responsibility to understand how your attitude can be viewed by people and how it can effect your relationship with them?

Sure, everyone does. I'm not really talking about an attitude. It's more or less a frame of mind I'm worried about.
If someones frame of mind is contradictory of what can be perceived as rational. Most often times they need to explain themselves or possibly be locked away in an institution.

Don't quote me or anything, but that bars Christians. Because we're rational to the extreme.
Don't you think Christianity is a rational choice LH?

 

[LightHorseman]

Sure, everyone does. I'm not really talking about an attitude. It's more or less a frame of mind I'm worried about.
If someones frame of mind is contradictory of what can be perceived as rational. Most often times they need to explain themselves or possibly be locked away in an institution.

Don't quote me or anything, but that bars Christians. Because we're rational to the extreme.
Don't you think Christianity is a rational choice LH?

Honestly? In a purely objective sense, no, Christianity probably isn't rational.

Homosexuality isn't inherently irrational though. No more irrational that heterosexuality, anyway.

 

[Inviolable]

Honestly? In a purely objective sense, no, Christianity probably isn't rational.

Homosexuality isn't inherently irrational though. No more irrational that heterosexuality, anyway.

I can't honestly say, that it isn't inherently irrational.

I can honestly say, there are people who think it looks irrational.
Otherwise homosexuals would be getting married in the U.S.

I'm not saying that you would every simply pass it off as prejudice yourself.

But I'm certain there are people out there who are so lazy as to not be able to get past their own line of thought, that it is getting passed off as prejudice.
I believe it's so because homosexuals don't want to admit in anyway that their actions could very well be seen as irrational.

I'm not saying that all of it isn't prejudice, but to assume that every ounce of nonacceptance towards homosexual marriage is prejudice isn't a rational act in and of itself.