[nailer]

From the article you just read:

> For a cynical person, this would be a great way out: “OK, I am not $x, so it is not my problem, you just claimed that I have no right to an opinion as I never experienced the suffering. Done.”

I'm not going to debate you: re-posting your opinion with no supporting arguments means you've obviously made up your mind.

I think it's rubbish that someone can't access their life partner in hospital because they're not married, and support gay marriage based on that idea. But know there's a lot of people who:

- May have grown up with the idea of a bride and groom for most of their lives. Eich is 52.

- May think of marriage as a framework for raising children, and believe children have a right to a mother and father.

- May be closeted homosexuals who find homosexual behaviour confronting

Or a number of other reasons.

You're going to respond to this post with: "no, all those people are homophobes" - like Heilmann wrote about, you're looking for the box to put your angry comment in. I get it, you don't care about any arguments that disagree with your stance, you've concluded your thought process already.

But I'm writing this for our audience, who may put more thought in.

[tomelders]

I'll answer your first two points one go; So what? If their concept is diminished by someone else's interpretation of marriage, then that's their problem, no one else's.

Do christians think jews have no right to worship? Do methodists believe anglicans have no right to worship? Of course not. They all worship the same god, and they all seem to have no problem allowing the other group to have their own definition of what worshiping god means without it diminishing what they believe worshiping god means.

So why does one persons definition of marriage take precedence over someone else's?

I don't know what you're attempting to say with your third point, but then I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't".

If you think it's ok to deny same sex couples the opportunity to marry, then you're a homophobe. Regardless of wether you argument against it is in support of some other persons beliefs.

[nailer]

> So why does one persons definition of marriage take precedence over someone else's?

Democracy.

> I don't think you've properly thought anything through, as evidenced by your childish gambit of "You can't call me a homophobe because I said you can't".

Do you genuinely think I said that, or an equivalent, are you trolling, or are you just so angry you want to lash out at someone, like Heilmann mentioned in the article?

I cannot imagine how anyone would call someone in favour of gay marriage a homophobe simply because they can see the other side of the argument. So no, I don't really feel much need to 'defend myself', anybody attacking me from that point of view would obviously not be thinking rationally.

I think you're so angry you didn't even realise I share your stand on the matter.

[tomelders]

Sorry, you're right, you didn't say that. I was on a rant and went too far there. I still believe there's a kernel of truth in what I said though. You do suggest that calling people out for being homophobic isn't a valid argument. I believe it is.