A free state and a free society is important to me. Equality under the law is important to me. In a free state, no one has the right to impose religion on anyone else, and no one has the right to prevent anyone from practicing any religion or none - given, of course, the basic restrictions of harming no one.

Too bad you reject freedom in favor of totalitarianism. Scary that you want everyone to believe what you believe, no allowance for freedom of thought.

Religion is not special. Some people believe in God or other religious things. While not required to respect what they believe, common politeness and humanity requires us to respect them.

It does me no harm if two believers want to have a church wedding. It does the believers no harm if I want to have a humanist ceremony in a registry office, or just sign the papers. Your argument appears to rest entirely on the notion that what’s offensive to you should be banned. That’s precisely the same argument that homophobic Christians use about gay marriage.

Keep supporting oppressive institutions and insidious ideas though.

The irony, it makes me weep. Your insistence that you should get to ban what you find offensive is far more supportive of oppressive institutions than my insistence that freedom of belief or disbelief, and the right to practice any religion or none, is a basic civil right.

Religion ain’t a positive. No reason to respect it, even if queers believe the silliness, it’s still silliness the world would be better off without.

Keep supporting oppressive institutions and insidious ideas though.

Of course not. Therefore, it should not ban religious service or ban religious officiants from carrying out civil marriages. To regard religious marriage as so dangerous to the common weal that people must be prevented by law from having a religious ceremony at the same time as their civil marriage is recognising religious service in a big way.

You have yet to tell me why the state should recognize a religious ceremony.

You have yet to point out where I argued that the state should do so.

People are free to believe what the hell they want. Just don’t expect me to welcome it or respect it

Who asked you to?

Civil marriages should be performed by civil authorities.

See the point that tigtog made that I agreed with: religious celebrants who want to perform legal marriages ought to have to be qualified and registered in the same way as anyone else who performs a legal marriage.

And I consider working against religion to be similar to doing work against Patriarchy and Heteronormativity

People are free to believe what the hell they want. Just don’t expect me to welcome it or respect it.

justice is that, as mixed-sex couples are allowed that, so should same-sex couples be.

has nothing to do with “justice” since the religious shouldn’t be involved with the state to begin with. It’s an error that needs to be corrected.

Just because gay people want something doesn’t make it inherently right. Same with straight folks. Religious privileging is wrong and needs to be opposed–even when queers fall for it.