> I don't think any time I'd spend with those types of people could ever be meaningful.

That's the same attitude you're accusing them of. It's not helpful on either side of the debate.

There's a difference between being scared & disagreeing. Your refusal to acknowledge the difference says more about your desire to perpetuate your viewpoint of them rather than attempt to understand their background. It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to refuse to come to the table with them at all in the first place.

I think we could continue to go back & forth all day, but you don't seem very open to the idea of listening to people with opposing viewpoints :).

Not really, I just think you've done a very poor job of equating "a difference of opinion" with "civil rights". And that's really what it boils down to: the anti-same-sex marriage side is just wrong on this one. And wrong opinions don't deserve respect.

> And wrong opinions don't deserve respect.

See that's where we fundamentally disagree. I respect all opinions - even if they're wrong, offensive or I disagree with them completely. That's the whole point of free speech

This is a wrong and dangerous interpretation of free speech. The whole point of free speech is that people are allowed to hold differing opinions and the need to respect their right to /voice/ such opinions. It is NOT about respecting the opinions themselves, and certainly not about giving equal weight or consideration to all opinions.

This latter interpretation is how we get creationists demanding equal time be given to teaching their "theory" in schools. They certainly have a right to not believe in evolution, and even shudder to promote that opinion, but that doesn't mean that opinion isn't stupid and somehow deserves to be given equal standing to evolution in the public sphere.