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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe with all my heart that people who oppose gay marriage or gay anything are struggling with their own homosexual issues. I don't get it otherwise. Before you make any assumptions about this poster, I'm hetero male.

i think you may be right. It doesn't make homosexuality okay. It simply means that there are people who are gay and know it is wrong. Bless those people doing the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP: please can any of those of you who are using the bible to justify your opposition to gay marriage please address the question raised by other posters about some of the other things that the bible says which are not common practice these days like taking multiple wives or marrying someone you have raped to eradicate the sin?

How is it possible to selectively pick which bits of the bible we must obey to the letter? And if that really is ok to pick and choose, can you explain why you choose to accept the language on marriage only being between the sexes?

It's just that it strikes me that some people are hiding behind religion to justify bigoted ideas. If this is wrong, can you explain why to me please?

Why are none of the people citing religion to explain their opposition answering this question? Could someone to so please?

[Anonymous]

Dang it, my comment was deleted - I guess because the comment it referred to was.

How about I address the hanging from cranes comment, then? You do realize that there have been plenty of hate crimes against homosexuals that have resulted in death, right? There have been oscar winning movies made about some of them, even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe with all my heart that people who oppose gay marriage or gay anything are struggling with their own homosexual issues. I don't get it otherwise. Before you make any assumptions about this poster, I'm hetero male.

I'm gay and I hate it when people say this. People who hate {minority group} aren't necessarily struggling with their own desire for {minority group}.

Some people are just assholes.

Oh, bless his heart. PP the hetero male was trying so hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe with all my heart that people who oppose gay marriage or gay anything are struggling with their own homosexual issues. I don't get it otherwise. Before you make any assumptions about this poster, I'm hetero male.

I'm gay and I hate it when people say this. People who hate {minority group} aren't necessarily struggling with their own desire for {minority group}.

Some people are just assholes.

Oh, bless his heart. PP the hetero male was trying so hard.

still. using. it. wrong.

[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.

Straight woman here, and I didn't get married with God involved in the ceremony. Does that mean DH and I don't have a marriage but only a civil union?

Personally I would be fine if the US went to a more European system, where everyone has to get married by the state to have your union to be recognized by the state (and receive all the benefits of marriage), and if you want god to be involved in your marriage then you have a 2nd ceremony with your clergy presiding.

And the whole anatomy thing is bizarre. So that means you want to outlaw non-heterosexual sex? Because gays will still have sex even if you don't allow them to get married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being gay isn't a sin. Sodomy is the sin. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in sodomy. Everybody is a sinner . Active homosexuals exclusively engage in sodomy while some active heterosexuals never do. As a Christian I stand against the promotion of and glorification of sodomy just as I would the religious celebration of greed or adultery.

So you're okay with lesbians getting married then.

[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.

This.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP here - I have to say, the anti-gay marriage people are not making much of a case.

Good thing your assessment of our "case" is irrelevant. We actually don't need to make a case. The Bible does it for me. Again, I acknowledge the civil unions of the LGBT community. But, it is not a marriage. About the only thing it has in common with marriage is two separate humans pledging life long oneness. That vow between men and women is holy. Not so between two same sex couples. Even if that annoyed me, wouldn't change it. I'm not in control of the Bible. It is what it is.

The bible is not a state document. If your church doesn't want to marry gays and lesbians, fine. But that shouldn't have any affect on what the state decides. The United States is not a theocracy.

[Anonymous]

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?

[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?

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...

[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?

Did you really just compare a gay man to a horse?

[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.

Hmm. Then how about "wedlock" then. Is calling it "wedlock" okay? That comes from old English meaning to pledge. Maybe we should use that term if "marriage" to you is off-limits. The state can sanction wedlock between 2 consenting adults who pledge themselves to each other for life.

Or how about "matrimony"? That comes from the Latin word for mother, though, so perhaps only lesbians could use it. Without the holy of course, since that would bother you.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.