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

[Anonymous]

OP, who really gives a sh*t? You know morally, logically it doesn't make sense. Stop baiting people.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:technically ^it is^ unnatural, sorry for typos, wrangling a 3 yo.

Wrangling? It sounds like with parenting and sex, you're doing it wrong.

OP: Um, what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, who really gives a sh*t? You know morally, logically it doesn't make sense. Stop baiting people.

OP: I give a shit, or I would not have asked. I am not baiting, I really want to understand if I am missing something here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

I understand why someone might think this. But how do you go from this view into deciding that they should not be allowed to get married?

Why is that you conclude that gay peopple should not get married because "the anatomy doesn't match up," but don't conclude that say, short and tall people, or fat and thin people should not get married?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

Then everyone should be required to have a civil union and religious people can choose to have a religious ceremony along with the contract accepted by the government.

If not then why stop there? Why not gay only bathrooms? Swimming pools? Counters? I mean why should a gay person have/use the same as you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

Then are you arguing that if non-religious people get married, it's not actually a marriage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, who really gives a sh*t? You know morally, logically it doesn't make sense. Stop baiting people.

+1 why can't people understand this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

I'm atheist. My DH (I'm a woman) is also atheist. Are we married, in your eyes? Should we be able to claim that we are married? Or should we only be able to claim a civil union?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

These are your personal definitions -- for the record, utterly contradictory to the actual biblical definition of marriage which almost always involved more than one woman -- and yet you feel you have a right to deny a central legal construct to gay people based solely on your opinion?

I think your Bible is shit. Should I be allowed to dissolve your supposed "marriage"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

Then everyone should be required to have a civil union and religious people can choose to have a religious ceremony along with the contract accepted by the government.

If not then why stop there? Why not gay only bathrooms? Swimming pools? Counters? I mean why should a gay person have/use the same as you?

All people do have civil unions that are government sanctioned. Men and women can call theirs a marriage. Same sex couples can't. It's really that simple. In the civil union scenario all committed couples are acknowledged, which is a must have in a secular society. For people who believe in the Bible, which trumps the government, their union, which can only be between a man and a woman, is called a marriage. As far as the other silliness you posed, it's sounds too ridiculous to comment. As a conservative Catholic, I'm unconcerned with using the bathroom with lesbians or going into the pool with them. They don't bother me and I actually like lesbians. I know many; however, I cannot call their unions with each other marriage. I acknowledge their civil arrangement, but again, it's not a marriage because a marriage is holy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

Do you also advocate for civil unions for straight, non-religious couples?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

Then are you arguing that if non-religious people get married, it's not actually a marriage?

If the non-religious people are males and females, they are married. I don't care what they believe. I care what I know to be the truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The Position"

unnatural. some might say, perverse. the anatomy doesn't match up.

+1

This. Also, it's a question of semantics for me. To me, the term "marriage" can only mean a man and a woman. The actual word has biblical meaning to me and it can't be discussed outside of religion. That said, I'm pro civil unions, which to me is different. In civil unions to same sex people vow "forever" to each other with mankind as their witness. God is not a factor and cannot be a factor because it is unholy. In marriage, God wills it, which He can only do for a man and a woman. A marriage is Holy. A civil union is a contract accepted by the government.

These are your personal definitions -- for the record, utterly contradictory to the actual biblical definition of marriage which almost always involved more than one woman -- and yet you feel you have a right to deny a central legal construct to gay people based solely on your opinion?

I think your Bible is shit. Should I be allowed to dissolve your supposed "marriage"?

I'm sorry that you're upset about the fact that marriage is not between people of the same sex. I don't make the rules. God does. I'm unhappy with many of God's rules, I must still obey. God doesn't make mistakes. You seem to believe that you know more than God. I obviously disagree. You don't know more than God, not even close. I do accept your civil union because it's man-sanctioned. But, a marriage it is not, nor could it ever be.