Some people thought that NOT separating blacks from whites was insulting, and that interracial marriage should be legalized against. Those people argued using very similar arguments you're making here.
Basically, here's a conversation your argument is making with a homosexual couple wanting to marry.
"We can't marry?"
"No."
"Why?"
"Because."
"...Because why?"
"Because I believe you shouldn't."
"Why should you dictate what our relationship can and can't be?"
"Because my moral code, whether or not you believe in anything near it or not, dictates that what you're doing is immoral/sinful/wrong (all words you'd insert here translate to wrong) and I should have the ability to dictate what you can or cannot do, since you are sinful."
Anyway you try to argue it, you're putting gay people who want to marry on a lower plane then you. You're the superior. And you think that gay people are going to just say OK and not think you're an arrogant *******?
I don't have an axe to grind here (pardon expression). First, if I understand correctly, a civil union and common law marriage are not identical. There may be some rights/privileges that married couples have that same-sex couple don't have. I'm not an expert on this. If civil union and marriage are really that close to the same, I'd see that as already a big concession and be disappointed by that. If it were really up to me, I'd basically treat it as a form of 'co-tenancy' and leave it that. Call me old fashioned.
Some people who are homosexual are really excellent and admirable people--smart, kind-natured, reasonable, peaceful, professional, dedicated, etc. I have nothing against these people, or any decent people, and I'm not here to pass judgment on these people. They are free to pursue happiness like anyone else. What we're discussing is the legal definition (and privilege?) of marriage. But there's a difference between the people and the practice. I can't say that these people are good because they practice homosexuality, or that they wouldn't be good people if they didn't practice homosexuality.
I said earlier in the thread that I think homosexuality is ultimately mentally and physically unhealthy, without bringing spirituality into the discussion. I can only say this based on what I've observed with other people who do this long term. Some of them have real health problems. Many people who have this lifestyle do see it as a vice, an indulgence, or a bad habit, and if they're really being honest many will admit that it seems unnatural to them or that they're conflicted over it. I know someone who moved to San Francisco and tried that lifestyle out of curiosity. It can go downhill pretty quickly. Maybe San Francisco is different from other places, but I won't get into all that goes on here. Even the public parades have people dancing around naked, dresslng in drag, like clowns or like animals, smacking each other or hitting each other with whips. To me, these particular people (who don't represent all gays, I assume) are knowingly making a mockery of themselves, lashing out with spite towards themselves and each other, shoving their gear in each other's face, and basically lowering the boundaries of what would be considered acceptable public behavior.
If this thing happened openly in Salt Lake City, I honestly don't know what would happen. I assume many of these people would get arrested and they even be fortunate if some onlookers didn't physically attack them.
Maybe this is the extreme, but where do you draw the line? If hypothetically you're sitting in the state legislature what are you supposed to do--make a statement that this lifestyle comprises a legitimate form of marriage? Obviously, some value judgment has to be made. Some say yes. Some say no. I guess that's why it goes to a vote.
If you think this makes me an arrogant *******, that's fine. It's your call. I can respect you, even if I don't respect everything you believe or do.
