Have you ever been called hateful (or a similar word) simply for opposing either homosexual acts on a moral level or same-sex marriage (SSM) on a legal level? Here's a quick rebuttal.
I, Doug Benscoter, eat chicken, steak, and other animal products. However, if I were told by a vegan that my dietary lifestyle is morally wrong, would I accuse that person of being hateful? Of course not. I suspect that because sex involves so many hormones, regardless of sexual orientation, that people who accuse sexual conservatives as "hateful" do so only as an emotional, and not a rational, response.
This reminds me of how I was once accused of "condemning" gays and lesbians. Would I feel "condemned" by the vegan above? No way. This person was just using an emotionally-charged word to either change the subject in which I defend myself from such an accusation, or else attempted to get me to backtrack, or both.
(By the way, I don't feel victimized by any of this. However, people need to know how to use words correctly and not rush to judgment.)
Now as for "marriage discrimination," I have only one thing to say: any argument that opposition to SSM is based on discrimination can equally be applied to single people. Why do I say single people, and not polygamous people, or those who want to marry within the family (immediate or extended), as many conservatives already do? The reason is that the proponent of SSM can no longer say that SSM is different than polygamous marriage, etc., so that it's an unfair comparison. I mention single people because they don't receive tax breaks, (in some states) adoption rights, hospital visitation rights as married people do, and so forth. In other words, if opposition to SSM is opposition to "equal rights," then opposition for single people to receive the same rights is also discriminatory and an opposition to "equal rights."
The conservative case for limiting marriage to a man and a woman includes the government's attempt to provide an incentive for married couples to reproduce by providing them with tax breaks, etc. It also includes the (albeit contested) fact that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Thirdly (and this will be the last for me to mention), it has been shown by numerous studies, including one conducted by Dr. J. Michael Bailey (a staunch gay-rights activist) that those who engage in homosexual acts are much more likely to suffer from various mental illnesses, from depression to schizophrenia. Moreover, these studies were conducted in countries where homosexuality is highly tolerated, and even accepted (and it's been shown there is no statistical difference between these countries and countries less tolerant of homosexual acts). Should the government provide an additional incentive for those who engage in homosexual acts to get married, knowing all of this? I think the most compassionate thing to do would be to limit marriage to one man and one woman, while simultaneously treating those homosexuals who are dealing with these mental illnesses. I also think hospital visitation rights laws should be revisited. As far as I'm concerned, people should have the right to be visited by whoever they want.