(June 27, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Your humanity is struggling with your institutionalised bigotry. It's a common side effect of addiction to Christcrack.

I think rather that it's you who have no concern for the institutions that have a lot of meaning for many.  If some guy wants to join a sorority, do you think we should grant him that right and change the definition of a sorority?

Both of you have concern.

No.  You don't get to appropriate a concept that was in practice before your religion existed.  The Government also does not need to be making up words for the same exact legal contract just to appease people.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:19 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:16 pm)FriendlyNeighborhoodAtheist Wrote: The writers of the constitution probably never envisioned marriage as a union between nonwhites.

I would think that was a situation that they were already familiar with.

No. It wasn't. That's why it took a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia, 1967,) redefining marriage to the behest of white Christians everywhere who used the same arguments then, and behaved the very same way Christians are now.

(June 27, 2015 at 6:52 pm)Spooky Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: The non-completely-batshit crazy ones, anyway.

In some cases, Stan Smith isn't a parody, but a mirror.

Stan for gay marriage

(June 27, 2015 at 8:10 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Iroscato Wrote: Your humanity is struggling with your institutionalised bigotry. It's a common side effect of addiction to Christcrack.

I think rather that it's you who have no concern for the institutions that have a lot of meaning for many. If some guy wants to join a sorority, do you think we should grant him that right and change the definition of a sorority?

Your analogy comes across as very flippant. If two human beings love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, why shouldn't they be included in the 'sorority'?

Either way, the debate is now over in the US, UK, Ireland and many more countries. Bigots lost, equality won, now let's move on to ending world poverty and warfare, yeah?

(June 27, 2015 at 8:23 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:19 pm)Lek Wrote: I would think that was a situation that they were already familiar with.

No. It wasn't. That's why it took a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia, 1967,) redefining marriage to the behest of white Christians everywhere who used the same arguments then, and behaved the very same way Christians are now.

Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:23 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: No. It wasn't. That's why it took a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia, 1967,) redefining marriage to the behest of white Christians everywhere who used the same arguments then, and behaved the very same way Christians are now.

Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

Translation: "They were wrong for [reasons], but we're right for [reasons]."  It's like when a family member asked me how I couldn't believe in Jesus, and I replied "you know, there's some mom in the Middle East asking her kid how he can't believe in Allah, and a brother in China asking his brother how he can't believe in Buddha, all with the same conviction you're asking with now," and they said "yeah, but... they're wrong."

(June 27, 2015 at 9:02 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Lek Wrote: Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

Translation: "They were wrong for [reasons], but we're right for [reasons]."  It's like when a family member asked me how I couldn't believe in Jesus, and I replied "you know, there's some mom in the Middle East asking her kid how he can't believe in Allah, and a brother in China asking his brother how he can't believe in Buddha, all with the same conviction you're asking with now," and they said "yeah, but... they're wrong."

I see the point you're trying to make, but it's not addressing the topic or my points.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.

The example of a man wishing to join a sorority is a fantastically bad analogy to same sex marriage.  Being kept out of a private club doesn't have the legal impact that marriage does.  Not joining a sorority doesn't prevent you from adopting children, doesn't affect your tax filing status, doesn't affect your visitation rights at hospital, doesn't affect the appearance of your name on your spouse's death certificate, and so on.

I've read the US Constitution, you might want to as well (it doesn't take long) - there's not a single word in it about marriage.  But there's a LOT of words in it regarding equal protection under the law.

Boru

(June 27, 2015 at 8:31 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:23 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: No. It wasn't. That's why it took a Supreme Court decision (Loving v. Virginia, 1967,) redefining marriage to the behest of white Christians everywhere who used the same arguments then, and behaved the very same way Christians are now.

Those who tried to deny inter-racial marriage were re-defining marriage.

How do you figure? The majority of the population understood it to be demeaning to the institution to allow the mixing of races. Daniel's iron and clay analogy was a common utterance. Biblical support and all that.

(June 27, 2015 at 9:14 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.

The example of a man wishing to join a sorority is a fantastically bad analogy to same sex marriage.  Being kept out of a private club doesn't have the legal impact that marriage does.  Not joining a sorority doesn't prevent you from adopting children, doesn't affect your tax filing status, doesn't affect your visitation rights at hospital, doesn't affect the appearance of your name on your spouse's death certificate, and so on.

I've read the US Constitution, you might want to as well (it doesn't take long) - there's not a single word in it about marriage.  But there's a LOT of words in it regarding equal protection under the law.

Boru

You're not reading what I said. I'm talking about allowing exactly the same rights to everyone who has the civil contract. That includes everything. As far as the sorority goes, whether public or private, the principle still applies.