Straight male, and am supportive of GLBTQ rights. I can't think of any rational reason to be opposed to them. Any argument that gay rights opponents bring up seems to fall into three categories: i) one that involves straight people too and has already been accepted by society, ii) one based solely on religious grounds (automatic fail for me), and iii) one based solely on personal discomfort with non-hetero sex, where my response is, you don't have to like it, but your discomfort is not a basis to deny other people essential freedoms.
Nieroshai said:
Anyway, yeah, gay rights FTW. But I don't even think marriage should be a civil institution so no I don't stand for gay marriage because I don't stand for marriage sanctioned by the government. Marriage has been turned from a mutually binding agreement between two(or more?) people to an agreement between that couple and the government. So yeah.
I have a slightly different take on this: marriage was never a mutually binding agreement just between two people--someone else was always involved, whether the state, religious institutions, or the families. Even in modern, egalitarian, developed societies, long-term relationships involve at least one of the following important things: money, property and children. When relationships fail, as many of them do, there has to be some system in place to deal with what happens to those things.
I'd prefer to see the state get out of the "marriage" business, and offer civil unions to both straight and gay couples. If the couple wants to call it a "marriage", they can, but the term would have no legal definition, just a social/cultural one. If they want to get recognized by their church, they can do that too, but unless they also get a civil union from the state, it has no legal weight.
This way:
i) Money, Property and Children are seen too when relationships break down
ii) The state doesn't make moral judgments on the definition of "marriage"
iii) Churches who don't want to marry gays don't have to; churches that want to marry gays can do so.