Those opposed to "gay marriage" will you explain your position to me?

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is over the word marriage. Gay marriage by any other name would receive a lot less resistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slippery slope. How about polygamy? Incest? Bestiality?

Predictably, DCUMers will come back at me with an ad hominem but do you have an actual reason why this wouldn't devolve as such?

Erm do you have any actual reason why it would?

Otherwise you may as well conjecture that it would devolve into tickle-fests or people eating spaghetti off toothbrushes because those things are about as connected to being gay as the things you mention...

Because the legal wranglings aren't really about being gay, they're about the equal opportunity to marry whom you want to marry. The argument is being pushed now in the form of gay marriage, but as a PP so eloquently posted, that's just one movement of the line. There's no reason to think the line won't now continue to move, and if it does, is that a good or bad thing.

But there continues to be a line requiring two consenting adults. Surely that is the important principle here? With bestiality, incest etc the 'two consenting adults' principle is breached in a way that it simply isn't with gay marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to sum up, the totality of the arguments against are:

- the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman (no comment on the fact it also says you can't mix fabrics);

- the bits don't match up; and

- it's a slippery slope to (insert random thing).

Did I miss anything?

I think you summed it up neatly.

All these people railing about "the gays" causing this and that disaster don't understand it is really about "the fabrics."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slippery slope. How about polygamy? Incest? Bestiality?

Predictably, DCUMers will come back at me with an ad hominem but do you have an actual reason why this wouldn't devolve as such?

Erm do you have any actual reason why it would?

Otherwise you may as well conjecture that it would devolve into tickle-fests or people eating spaghetti off toothbrushes because those things are about as connected to being gay as the things you mention...

Because the legal wranglings aren't really about being gay, they're about the equal opportunity to marry whom you want to marry. The argument is being pushed now in the form of gay marriage, but as a PP so eloquently posted, that's just one movement of the line. There's no reason to think the line won't now continue to move, and if it does, is that a good or bad thing.

But there continues to be a line requiring two consenting adults. Surely that is the important principle here? With bestiality, incest etc the 'two consenting adults' principle is breached in a way that it simply isn't with gay marriage.

I grant your point when it comes to bestiality or someone ridiculously wanting to marry their house. But when you move into polyamory or incest between adults, then it still is about consenting adults. The fact that two or more people consent doesn't by default mean it's a good thing - for them, their family, and/or society writ large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slippery slope. How about polygamy? Incest? Bestiality?

Predictably, DCUMers will come back at me with an ad hominem but do you have an actual reason why this wouldn't devolve as such?

Unpredictably, I will note that the exact same argument was used by the state of Virginia in its defense of laws against interracial marriage. Loving v. State of Virginia.

[Anonymous]

The interracial thing is such a stupid argument. Marriage is specifically about a relationship. It has nothing to do with skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interracial thing is such a stupid argument. Marriage is specifically about a relationship. It has nothing to do with skin color.

We think it's stupid now. But in 1967 or so when Loving was decided, it was a real argument. In 40 years, the argument against legitimizing gay marriage will look similarly thin and pretextual to those who have grown up with it as fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to gay marriage is over the word marriage. Gay marriage by any other name would receive a lot less resistance.

I think you're right. But what I don't understand is why do so many people care? I really do not care who marries whom. It doesn't affect me. If my neighbors are gay and married, or gay and not married, what's the difference to me? They are still living together and doing the same things. Ditto for straight married or unmarried neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If only you kept it behind closed doors, I wouldn't care. It's shoving it in my face that I find repulsive. Has nothing to do with your faith, OP.

This.

I'm all for civil unions with all the benefits of marriage. But STFU already.

What exactly constitutes "shoving it in your face?" PDA? Noticing that two men are getting married to each other? A colleague having a picture of his husband? Talking about the possibility of gay marriage?

I am a straight woman married to a man. When I walk down the street with my husband and child, am I shoving my relationship and my lifestyle in your face? Why or why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Full disclosure: I am a gay marriage supporter, and voted for it in Maryland. So I am not exactly the person you are talking to. Further, I suspect that many of the supposed opponents of gay marriage on this thread are actually supporters trying to make opponents look terrible. But that's just a guess. On the internet no one knows you are a dog.

OP here, thank you for your post, it was about the only one that looked at the issue without religion, and that was what I asked for. I appreciate it.

The rest of the reasons seem to be from people who pick and choose what they want to call sin and ignore everything else about the bible. Even though they feel the bible is the literal word of God and a manual to live by. They also seem to be obsessed with PDA and sex by homosexual couples. Which I find so odd.

In fact when I laid out exactly what biblical sex was I was told I was doing it wrong.

When I talked about mixing wool with another fabric was a nono I was told everyone did it, including me.

However homosexuality, that seems to be the most important part of the bible to the opponents.

Since it seems you can only argue in biblical terms...
The most important part to me, a devout catholic?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

and

Starting with Mark 12:28
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

His words. Not one mention of sodomy. Not one mention of "Adam and Steve" not one mention of denying those you find distasteful.
Just love your neighbor, treat your neighbor as you would be treated. There is no greater commandment.

Have you forgotten this quote? “I asked Jesus, ‘How much do you love me?’ And Jesus said, ‘This much.’ Then He stretched out His arms and died.”

No mention of dying for heterosexuals, no mention of marriage being between a man and a woman. Just that he so loved the world he died for our sins. All of us sinners. Read the ten commandments, those of you who oppose gay marriage. Are you flawless? I think not, none of us are. Are you saying homosexuality is a greater sin than the ten commandments? Are you somehow exempt from Jesus' greatest commandment?

You should be ashamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interracial thing is such a stupid argument. Marriage is specifically about a relationship. It has nothing to do with skin color.

Right, but if gays marry, we are just a hop skip and a jump from legalizing interspecies sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interracial thing is such a stupid argument. Marriage is specifically about a relationship. It has nothing to do with skin color.

Right, but if gays marry, we are just a hop skip and a jump from legalizing interspecies sex.

+1

These are the same tired arguments from when we were bickering about interracial marriage, what, 50 years ago?

[Anonymous]

I don't think the word marriage means a gay marriage.

I deeply resent this re-tooling of the English language to further your agenda.

I don't think Gays should be able to adopt on the same basis as heterosexual couples. I am not blanket opposed but I feel preference should be given to straights as this is more what nature intended for kids.

Those are my objections. I don't really voice them any more simply because I got tired of being called a bigot.

Now that this debate is resolved (in favor of gay marriage), I don't care too much anymore about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Full disclosure: I am a gay marriage supporter, and voted for it in Maryland. So I am not exactly the person you are talking to. Further, I suspect that many of the supposed opponents of gay marriage on this thread are actually supporters trying to make opponents look terrible. But that's just a guess. On the internet no one knows you are a dog.

OP here, thank you for your post, it was about the only one that looked at the issue without religion, and that was what I asked for. I appreciate it.

The rest of the reasons seem to be from people who pick and choose what they want to call sin and ignore everything else about the bible. Even though they feel the bible is the literal word of God and a manual to live by. They also seem to be obsessed with PDA and sex by homosexual couples. Which I find so odd.

In fact when I laid out exactly what biblical sex was I was told I was doing it wrong.

When I talked about mixing wool with another fabric was a nono I was told everyone did it, including me.

However homosexuality, that seems to be the most important part of the bible to the opponents.

Since it seems you can only argue in biblical terms...
The most important part to me, a devout catholic?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."

and

Starting with Mark 12:28
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.
To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

His words. Not one mention of sodomy. Not one mention of "Adam and Steve" not one mention of denying those you find distasteful.
Just love your neighbor, treat your neighbor as you would be treated. There is no greater commandment.

Have you forgotten this quote? “I asked Jesus, ‘How much do you love me?’ And Jesus said, ‘This much.’ Then He stretched out His arms and died.”

No mention of dying for heterosexuals, no mention of marriage being between a man and a woman. Just that he so loved the world he died for our sins. All of us sinners. Read the ten commandments, those of you who oppose gay marriage. Are you flawless? I think not, none of us are. Are you saying homosexuality is a greater sin than the ten commandments? Are you somehow exempt from Jesus' greatest commandment?

You should be ashamed.

You're a devout liar, but a Catholic- No! Just because you go through the rigamarole to maintain the title of Catholic doesn't make you one- especially not traipsing on an anonymous board to find validation for your very un-Christian beliefs. Take this nonsense to your pastor and let us all know what he says. Waiting to hear back, but not holding my breathe... BTW the devil comes in many forms including imposters pretending to be Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interracial thing is such a stupid argument. Marriage is specifically about a relationship. It has nothing to do with skin color.

We think it's stupid now. But in 1967 or so when Loving was decided, it was a real argument. In 40 years, the argument against legitimizing gay marriage will look similarly thin and pretextual to those who have grown up with it as fact.

Perhaps. But that still doesn't make gay marriage right