You're wrong about the Catholic church attempting to ban gay marriage. Gay marriage is not yet the law in Scotland, something that does not yet exist cannot be banned. They make their opposition to any change in the law clear but apart from that, nothing. Scotland is not a theocracy. As for these other groups, I'm willing to discuss if you are.
My bad; "keep not legal" rather than "ban", then. It comes down to the same thing in the end. (Often even before that; if you look at some countries, such as the US, a lot of organisations
are currently working to pre-emptively ban same-sex marriage before the majority change their mind.)
And you're right, Scotland is not a theocracy, and Great Britain has one of the most long-standing democratic traditions in the world. Which is something you're rightly proud of. And which is exactly why I've been saying that the opinions of the catholic church (as opposed to those of voters in elections and the politicians they elect) and their "religious morals" (as opposed to the morals of said voters and politicians) should have absolutely nothing to do with whether it's legal or not. The catholic church doesn't get a vote. If catholic Scots want to vote against it, they can. But if they fail to convince a majority that gay people are evil, they can't just go "RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION WAAAH" and demand that the state "compromise" with the church on an issue that, exactly because Scotland isn't a theocracy and the church therefore isn't part of the state,
doesn't affect them in any other way than that it makes it even harder for them to convince people that gay people are evil. Yes, in a democracy it's important to take minority opinions and rights into consideration so they don't get steamrolled by the majority, and that applies to catholics as well as gays. But group A's right to think group B
shouldn't have rights doesn't hold the same weight as group B's right to actually
have rights. If it does, where does that end? Should hardline muslims (and by all means, some christians) be offered "compromises" on women's voting rights, since they have the right to think women are subservient to men? Should neo-nazi groups be offered "compromises" on ethnic minority rights, since they have the right to believe in a zionist conspiracy? Should flat earthers and creationists be offered "compromises" on science education? Should (gasp, horror) non-ska fans be offered "compromises" on whether Madness should do another reunion tour?
Sorry that got long, but I've tried to explain this again and again and I'm honestly not sure how much clearer I can make that point. I'm not really in this to discuss the exact (and, sadly, very far from unique) situation in Scotland, but the same exact arguments seem to be brought up no matter where it's set. So in the meantime, here's a pretty awesome link:
Out Of Bounds Blog No. 13 - Dear Mr. Balling » Out of Bounds
If even professional American football players are starting to get sick of the increasingly strained arguments used by the anti side, it's really just a matter of time before they're consigned to the same dark (and still depressingly crowded) corners as most other hate groups.
