I didn't express my opinion. Since you asked, no they're not more important, but keeping human babies from being killed with impunity and not letting society pretend that two people of the same sex can be married are indeed important.
This notion about gay marriage is based on the near-ubiquitous misinterpretation of what it is that the gay marriage movement actually seeks.
You must understand that there are
two separate and distinct forms of marriage in modern society. A religious couple, upon deciding to marry, will typically seek out BOTH marriage licenses--one from City Hall for the state's blessing, and one from the church, for God's blessing.
I will state again, because it is so vital to understanding the debate, that
there are two separate and distinct forms of marriage. The gay marriage movement doesn't demand that we barge into churches and force them to perform sacred religious ceremonies for gays--if anyone advocated that method, I would be appalled at such an outrageous intrusion upon first amendment rights to free exercise of religion.
All they want is the legal right, period. They want the visitation rights, the tax cuts, the legal immunity, etc. etc....
the gay marriage movement is not a moral referendum on homosexuality! Remember that a marriage ceremony in a church is totally unrecognized by the state, and a marriage ceremony in City Hall is totally unrecognized by God...many people just choose to have both.
The next argument you offer here is typically "well the legal form of marriage is obviously based on the current Christian conception of marriage, so it's not as important", etc. etc., at which point I'd remind you that the concept of marriage predates Christianity and even Judaism by thousands of years! Read up on a little history and you'll find that the precious religious ceremony you hold so dearly has been borrowed and borrowed again by hundreds of different belief systems throughout history--and yours was by no means the first to adopt it.
More importantly, though--they are not asking for God's blessing--only the state's! And there is a clear and distinct difference there.
----
Also, on the topic of abortion--you have a valid argument against it, assuming that the human soul is, in fact, impressed upon a zygote at the very moment of conception. But if you want to prevent this argument from becoming totally unsound (and thereby give yourself some basis on which to legislate this moral view), you need to give the rest of us a convincing argument as to why we should believe in the soul or assume that this 2-day-old clump of cells which does not yet feel or perceive anything is actually a human life.
I know, I know--you don't need to prove it to us because it's a matter of faith! And that's fine--feel free to abstain from having anything to do with abortions for your entire life, for all I care--just don't make laws declaring that I have to do the same, unless you can offer reasoned, objective evidence.