(July 23, 2018 at 1:06 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 12:25 pm)polymath257 Wrote: He supported a bigoted law because of political pressure.

It was hardly an example of moral courage.

---

But I would say this is NOT a new definition. it is the definition that has always been used. it's just that in the past societies, for various reasons, did not accept gay marriages. We have overcome those limitations. Also, some societies did not share that limitation, even in the past. But in *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people recognized by society in order to form a family unit.

This is getting ridiculous. In *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people a man and a women recognized by society in order to form a family unit. This is the complete definition. You cannot find an exception.

If you want to take out man and woman, you have made the definition broader. You have changed the meaning. You have changed the definition.

Fine. The definition got changed. It's not hurting you so move the fuck on.

For fuck's sake, you act like they killed your puppy.

(July 23, 2018 at 1:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 1:30 pm)SteveII Wrote: Do you mean the examples where there were multiple men and/or women? That was in no way support for your position. For example, in the case of one man multiple wives: were the women married to each other? NO. One person got married MULTIPLE times to the opposite sex. See the difference? No one screwed with the definition of marriage.

A corporation is only considered a person in the eyes of the law in certain circumstances. There is no one on the planet that things that a corporation is actually a person. Red Herring.

I disagree. The marriage between gays is a matter of law. That is all that is relevant. Whether *you* consider it to be a marriage is irrelevant as whether *you* consider a corporation to be a person.

The only question is whether gays should be allowed to enter into exactly the same legal agreements to have their bond legally recognized.

Dropping the definition thing I see. Good. It was a loser argument from the beginning.
I understand that it is a matter of law that gays can get married. The definition still had to be changed for that to happen. There is a significant part of the populace who preferred to keep the 10,000 year old definition. Which brings me back to my point I have made over and over--opposing the change does not entail bigotry. Making that argument is impossible.

You mean the 10,000 year old definition that marriage is between one man and many wives?

(July 23, 2018 at 1:49 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 1:06 pm)SteveII Wrote: This is getting ridiculous. In *all* cases, marriage was a bond between people a man and a women recognized by society in order to form a family unit. This is the complete definition. You cannot find an exception.

If you want to take out man and woman, you have made the definition broader. You have changed the meaning. You have changed the definition.

Fine. The definition got changed. It's not hurting you so move the fuck on.

For fuck's sake, you act like they killed your puppy.

It is funny watching them get bent out of shape on the matter .

---

(July 23, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Divinity Wrote: You mean the 10,000 year old definition that marriage is between one man and many wives?

But Div it's still follows Steve's Arbitrary definition based on the sex of the participants in the legal society based contract of marriage . And of course Steve will simply dismiss it as not being majoritarian enough for him so it does not count .And his does for the reason because he says so .....

(July 23, 2018 at 1:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 1:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I disagree. The marriage between gays is a matter of law. That is all that is relevant. Whether *you* consider it to be a marriage is irrelevant as whether *you* consider a corporation to be a person.

The only question is whether gays should be allowed to enter into exactly the same legal agreements to have their bond legally recognized.

Dropping the definition thing I see. Good. It was a loser argument from the beginning.
I understand that it is a matter of law that gays can get married. The definition still had to be changed for that to happen. There is a significant part of the populace who preferred to keep the 10,000 year old definition. Which brings me back to my point I have made over and over--opposing the change does not entail bigotry. Making that argument is impossible.

Why do you make such a big deal of the definition???

The relevant definition is the legal one. Not the religious one. Not any definition you imagine going back thousands of years (and which, in fact, doesn't). The legal definition right here and right now.

Seriously, there were more that are perfectly happy with the definition as it is currently used in US law. And yes, the only reason to stick with your imagined ancient, traditional definition is bigotry.

You simply don't want to think that gays can have a perfectly healthy relationship that is approved by the society. because that is what marriage is. And that is ALL it is.

(July 23, 2018 at 2:18 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 1:59 pm)SteveII Wrote: Dropping the definition thing I see. Good. It was a loser argument from the beginning.
I understand that it is a matter of law that gays can get married. The definition still had to be changed for that to happen. There is a significant part of the populace who preferred to keep the 10,000 year old definition. Which brings me back to my point I have made over and over--opposing the change does not entail bigotry. Making that argument is impossible.

Why do you make such a big deal of the definition???

The relevant definition is the legal one. Not the religious one. Not any definition you imagine going back thousands of years (and which, in fact, doesn't). The legal definition right here and right now.

Seriously, there were more that are perfectly happy with the definition as it is currently used in US law. And yes, the only reason to stick with your imagined ancient, traditional definition is bigotry.

You simply don't want to think that gays can have a perfectly healthy relationship that is approved by the society. because that is what marriage is. And that is ALL it is.

Why? Because that is the biggest objection to the gay marriage debate. Goes right over most of your heads. Instead, you want to go right to "bigotry." Then when pressed, you go through all sorts of machinations (see this thread as exhibit A) to link the two. You can't. It's impossible. There is no such thing at all, ever, of a religious definition of marriage. It predates and transcends all religions and all cultures. Your argument is shit because there is nothing you can dream up to establish the link to bigotry. All you have are assertions, mischaracterizations, and demonization with a health dose of circular reasoning. Well done.

(July 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 2:18 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Why do you make such a big deal of the definition???

The relevant definition is the legal one. Not the religious one. Not any definition you imagine going back thousands of years (and which, in fact, doesn't). The legal definition right here and right now.

Seriously, there were more that are perfectly happy with the definition as it is currently used in US law. And yes, the only reason to stick with your imagined ancient, traditional definition is bigotry.

You simply don't want to think that gays can have a perfectly healthy relationship that is approved by the society. because that is what marriage is. And that is ALL it is.

Why? Because that is the biggest objection to the gay marriage debate. Goes right over most of your heads. Instead, you want to go right to "bigotry." Then when pressed, you go through all sorts of machinations (see this thread as exhibit A) to link the two. You can't. It's impossible. There is no such thing at all, ever, of a religious definition of marriage. It predates and transcends all religions and all cultures. Your argument is shit because there is nothing you can dream up to establish the link to bigotry. All you have are assertions, mischaracterizations, and demonization with a health dose of circular reasoning. Well done.

Exactly. it's the biggest objection to gay marriage. And it is an absolutely trivial one considering the legal context. Why the heat over a definition like this unless it is due to bigotry? Seriously. What other reason would there be to get this bent out of shape in having two men in a legal marriage?

All that is required is that legally, the bond between gays is exactly the same as the bond between straights.

So am I not biggoted then if I say "Christians don't have a right to freedom of religion because they can't change the definition of God. We should tear down every fucking church in this country." and then go about passing legislation to do that.

Am I correct?

Steve, could you please explain how changing the definition of the word 'marriage' impacts you?

Moral outrage aside...

(July 23, 2018 at 2:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm)SteveII Wrote: Why? Because that is the biggest objection to the gay marriage debate. Goes right over most of your heads. Instead, you want to go right to "bigotry." Then when pressed, you go through all sorts of machinations (see this thread as exhibit A) to link the two. You can't. It's impossible. There is no such thing at all, ever, of a religious definition of marriage. It predates and transcends all religions and all cultures. Your argument is shit because there is nothing you can dream up to establish the link to bigotry. All you have are assertions, mischaracterizations, and demonization with a health dose of circular reasoning. Well done.

Exactly. it's the biggest objection to gay marriage. And it is an absolutely trivial one considering the legal context. Why the heat over a definition like this unless it is due to bigotry? Seriously. What other reason would there be to get this bent out of shape in having two men in a legal marriage?

All that is required is that legally, the bond between gays is exactly the same as the bond between straights.

No one cared about opposing civil unions--which would have provided the legal framework of equal rights. Why was that not enough? 

Setting aside that you just espoused an argument from ignorance, why prefer the old definition? Take your pick:

1. its the principle of the thing
2. people get attached to a definition after 10,000 years
3. it's a slippery slope if 5 people can just decide for everyone. What's next from the bench? 
4. it's a symbol of a relativistic culture which is then linked to the crumbling of the fabric of society
5. belief that marriage was ordained by God (traditionally defined) as the most important institution ever created for mankind (not a religious institution) and should not be redefined ever. 

There, I gave 5 reasons that are not themselves routed in bigotry. Someone could hold just one or all of them.