Counter to what?
First fail.
To summarize: Directly saying that you donÂt like the idea of two dudes loving on each other is bigoted, but using your checkbook to try to keep them from doing so as honest men is, if unsavory, rational enough.
My complete failure to understand why anyone (myself included) would wish to marry in the absence of an expectation of children is not at all equivalent to my saying that I "don't like the idea of two dudes loving on each other."
Second fail.
...that while the resistance to interracial marriage was based solely on white supremacy (bad), objectors to gay marriage are capable of taking their stand purely in the realm of religion-based, Âtraditional definitions of marriage without rejecting gay people or gay sex at all (tolerable).
The traditional definition of marriage (that it is a relationship which usually produces a new generation) has nothing to do with a religous basis, but millenia of experience.
Look, the bottom line for me is that I don't really oppose "gay marriage." I just don't see a need for it. I don't see a need for marriage in the absence of an expection of children at all. That lack of comprehension on my part applies equally to same-sex couples and heterosexual couples. The definition of the word "marriage" has clearly changed. It is no longer the institution that usually generates subsequent generations (it's actual sole purpose and the reasons behind any benefits government bestows upon it). What it's purpose is now remains unclear. But in this new definition it can no longer be defined as a relationship which usually produces subsequent generations. It's meaning and possible resultant contributions to society at large are now ambiguous and completely unknown, if not unlikely, respectively.
That does not mean that I think that cohabitating loving couples should be denied any rights and privileges that apply to the individuals in a marriage. Nor does it mean that I think the families defined as a loving non-wed couple, single mothers, single fathers, or any of the myriad of different types of families are any less a family than one in possession of a marriage certificate. I'm not now nor have I ever been an advocate for any rights restrictions based upon the absence of a marriage certificate - for heterosexual couples or homosexual couples.
For me, the whole issue really is equivalent to our deciding that two males born to the same parents referring to one another as "brother" but referring to their female sibling as "sister" is somehow a violation of their sister's equal protection rights. Following the logic of your criticism of my position, you'd say I believed brotherhood to be superior to sisterhood, or that I was a misogynist, or that sisterhood was somehow "too icky" for me to accept, or some other nonsense.
We've collectively decided to change the definition of "marriage" and make it less precise. In the process we've dropped the societally contributing portion of the definition ("usually results in the birth of a new generation"). What it means now is unclear. But I maintain that there is no need for marriage in the absence of an expectation of children. No one has come up with a rational reason for such a marriage. As I've pointed out, there are better, easier to accomplish methods for achieving the vaunted "preferential treatment afforded only to marriages" than expanding the definition of "marriage" to cover other relationships.
That's all I'll write on this topic because, clearly, I'm not permitted to hold that "marriage in the absence of an expectation of children" is a dumb idea. Saying that is apparently equal to saying, "I hate gay people." And that's something I never want to have anyone take seriously as a possibility.
