I respect and encourage your beliefs.
Unless you're in support of it, of course. I'm not being sarcastic. I've yet to see a single cogent argument that would lead me to the conclusion that any person of reasonable moral and mental faculty could support this measure. If anybody who reads this supports it and wants to chime in with an argument I haven't heard, I'll be more than happy to address it or admit its relevancy. For now though, lets go through some of the arguments in favor that I've heard:
What's next? Polygamy? Humans and dogs getting married?
Well dogs can't speak for themselves. Anybody whose noted the somehow-even-creepier-than-it-is-stupid sexy French Maid dog costume could reasonably conclude that the pooches aren't exactly making their own decisions anywhere.
As for polygamy, it's an entirely separate issue. In order for this sort of doomsaying slippery slope argument to have any logical validity, what's proposed has to way different from a static status quo. After all, people still marry fat people, and while they might be just as attractive and lovable as normal people, they still take up two seats on the bus. And we both know it's a slippery slope from two seats on the bus to twice the marital benefits.
Children, children, will somebody please think of the children? Marriage is about procreation!
I wouldn't want to define anyone's marriage, but if your primary purpose for marriage is procreation, you might want to borrow this pop-up book I have. It's called, "Where Babies Come From", and it's got a picture of a stork on the cover. Pretty sweet.
Anyway, it says on page one that nobody in their right mind thinks you have to be married to procreate, that in fact you could go out and do it today, and that the point of marriage isn't to make children (which, again, anybody could do) but rather to provide a stable and loving environment in which children can be loved. Which brings us to our next point.
Gays can't be parents! You need two parents of opposite sexes!
If you believe this, I want you to visit your nearest foster care center. On the way home, I want you to swing through Toys "R" Us. Listen to the whining, screaming, crying children. Then visit an abortion clinic, and watch a woman make a decision that she can never reverse, a decision that you probably wouldn't want her to make.
Then slap yourself for trying to lessen the number of two parent homes in this country.
Seriously, does this make any sense? Here is an entire class of people who can reasonably do nothing except HELP the number of unwanted children in this country. To use an entirely gratuitous analogy, it's like if you were hungry, and all these people were trying to give food away, only you voted in favor of a proposition in favor of banning that because they liked to have sex with other people of the same sex.
Ok, so that wasn't analogy so much as a muddled and confusing repetition of exactly what I just said. I tried though. I tried.
Homosexuality is wrong!
I'll humor you, what does that have to do with getting married? I happen to believe that close-minded bigotry is wrong, but you don't see me supporting a ban on your marriage, do you, hypothetical distilled pro-Prop 8 person, do you?
It's just not natural. That's not how humans were made.
I understand. Look, if you support this argument, I can kind of agree with you. It's not natural, and you should fight against it. Here's what you have to do. Find a hammer, and smash whatever screen you're looking at it on. God created Adam and Eve, not Apple and Dell. Then, destroy your toaster. God created bread, not toast.
If you're a multi-tasker, you might want to do this while taking a bath.
People will just marry anybody now for the benefits! I'm going to marry my roommate!
You use an awful lot of exclamation points, hypothetical distilled pro-Prop 8 person. Sit down and eat a sandwich. If you don't realize that you can have a roommate of the opposite sex, and that you can in fact as we speak get married strictly for benefits, stop reading this. Following my somewhat-coherent babble is probably way too much trouble — stick to coloring.
Hope your next one makes it to the fridge.
Marriage is a religious institution! I have freedom of religion!
Nobody is trying to make any religions formally recognize gay marriage. Marriage is a legal institution in this country, entirely seperate from whatever it is you do in church.
It's singing, right? People sing and stuff in church? And, if I'm correct, blast America and say racist stuff?
The State shouldn't define marriage.
First, I applaud your rare punctuational restraint. Second, #%^$ the heck are you talking about?
The State already defines marriage. Prop 8 would make the state define marriage even more closely and even more poorly. Using this as an argument is like saying "guys, skydiving is a little too risky for me. Let's play Russian Roulette instead."
If you want to strike the word marriage from the legislative record entirely, you're weirdly concerned with semantics, but sure. I'll get behind that, if you care that much. But to allow one group "marriage" but not another seems like lunacy.
Like I said, i might have missed some arguments. If you want to disagree or correct me on something, I'd love to hear it.