You teach and don't understand what it means to respect one's opinion? It doesn't mean you have to agree with that opinion at all. It just means that you respect the other person's right to have it and express it. It means that you don't dismiss it out of hand without hearing that person's specific reasons for their position and accuse them of being "haters" or "bigots" or "racists" for having it.
The left loves to throw out the "do not judge" canard all the time, but are the first to apply it when it comes to this issue and pretty much every other moral issue that people disagree with them on. You don't know my heart. And just because you don't agree with my reasons for my beliefs (which I find to be very compelling in regards to anthropology, history, logic, natural law, etc), it doesn't mean that those reasons are driven by hatred, bigotry, or any other feelings of ill will towards others.
As a teacher you have very grave responsibility, an obligation, not to indoctrinate your students with this kind of group think mentality where if you don't think as the collective you are shunned or worse. I hope you take that to heart and don't belittle, marginalize, or ostracize students who disagree with your opinion on this and other matters. The best teachers I ever had were ones where I didn't know what their opinion was on different topics but who simply helped their students flesh that out for themselves.
I agree with everything you said, and the way I conduct myself around my students is vastly different than the way I conduct myself around people in this forum. For one, I do not get frustrated with them in the way I get frustrated with so many people on here, because
unlike so many people on here, their minds are actually
open and trying to figure out the correct way to approach an issue. They do not have settled ideological views, many do have religious views, and their moral views are often developing (this was certainly true of me).
I do understand what it is to respect another's opinion. I teach philosophy and one of the most basic and initial things we ever do is practice in taking "the other side," another's "perspective," adopt their stance, apply their reasons, and see if they're any good. We do this sort of thing all the time.
I do not indoctrinate students in the class room. I rarely inject my opinion. The best way to teach philosophy is to let the students reason and discuss the issue on their own. The person whom I am writing my dissertation, moreover, was acutely sensitive to the issue of group think that you raise. He called it "herd instinct," a desire to conform to the behavior and patterns of the group, and he thought it explained a great deal of our moral development. The idea behind it is that it is dangerous to put yourself out on a limb and think differently from the crowd. Herd instinct is not a left-wing or right-wing phenomenon. It belongs to both equally.
If you really have reasons to be against gay marriage that aren't merely based on your religious beliefs, if, as you say, you find reasons in "anthropology, history, logic, and natural law," then I would like to hear them, and I would not dismiss them out of hand. This is not really the place to do that, but I'd be happy to have that discussion, and I see no reason why we couldn't do so cordially.
And again, for now the third time, I explicitly said you could be intolerant of (i.e., take a moral stand against) homosexuality and not be a "bigot," a "hater," or hold ill will towards homosexuals. If you read my posts, you will see that I am not using such tactics myself.
Finally, if you need evidence that I do not indoctrinate my students, consider this post evidence. You actually wrote out a thoughtful response that wasn't just blatantly uncharitable to your opponents, and I am responding in kind (i.e., not being a complete dick like I am with others). That is how the classroom typically goes too. I've never yet had an experience where someone stormed out or even got upset, because half the crap that came up in this thread never would.
