I wasn't talking about Christians specifically when I said that, just people in general who object to homosexuality.
Well you were talking about Christians indirectly since that's where most of the political opposition is coming from in the first place. Basically, you're generalizing an entire group of people, Christian or not, by questioning their motives concerning why they oppose same-sex "marriage." Apparently it's okay to question our motives, but yours are sacrosanct. That is the message I'm getting from you.
And it's not that homosexuals require state sanction to express their love, it's the fact that they can't if they want to. But heteresexual people can, if they wish.
Then why not say that in the first place instead of bringing this arbitrary defintion of "love" into the picture? And maybe some homosexual couples don't get "married" for love for the same reason many heterosexual couples don't. We aren't talking about an expression of love, but a legal institution. In full disclosure, my position has been that we ought to eliminate marriage as a legal institution altogether. I think that's the only reasonable alternative to the status quo.
But in my mind, not allowing two people of the same sex to marry is more than just disagreeing with their behaviour, you know?
No, I don't. I see nothing disrespectful about the state upholding the true definition of marriage.