"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[SteveII]

You have said that the belief is hateful, but you just admitted that it is not. 

Stop prooftexting me.  Not all Christians see homosexuality as sinful, and as anyone can tell if they read the your link, I specifically referenced the "homosexuality is sinful" belief.  It is not universal in Christianity.

How do you suppose your LGBT friends would feel if they knew how you felt about gay marriage?  If they don't know now, I think they should find out so that they can make an informed choice about whether or not to continue the friendship.

AND my point is: for the vast amount of Christians who do think it is a sin, you would not know the difference.  You truly would not. Think about it. What is the difference between you and a heterosexual non-christian in the eyes of a Christian? Nothing. It has NOTHING to do with what particular sin a person is involved in. In our worldview, you both need God equally. It makes no sense whatsoever to call a non-christian out because of a particular sin.

[Amarok]

AND my point is: for the vast amount of Christians who do think it is a sin, you would not know the difference.  You truly would not. Think about it. What is the difference between you and a heterosexual non-christian in the eyes of a Christian? Nothing. It has NOTHING to do with what particular sin a person is involved in. In our worldview, you both need God equally. It makes no sense whatsoever to call a non-christian out because of a particular sin

Wow going over shit already been covered seriously stop digging the deeper fool

[SteveII]

Oh, so pretend that the word was not redefined. Okay, I'll try that.

Funny how you're not squawking about how secular governments changed the definition of marriage when they started allowing judges not ordained by any church to perform them.

You claim you're fine with civil unions. But, the only way to be fair about civil unions is to make them the only legally binding agreement. That means your local shaman would no longer have the power to grant a legally binding agreement between "one man and one woman." You down with that Stevie? Or, are you going to ignore me again?

What are you rambling about? Marriage IS NOT a religious concept. That is terribly evident by 10,000+ years of history and billion upon billions of marriages across all times and all cultures. You are erecting straw men.

[Divinity]

Anyone wanna remind me how the fuck many wives King Solomon had?

Christians don't get to bitch about redefining marriage from "one man and one woman" when their mythical figures didn't stick to that themselves. They can just go fuck themselves. Probably the only person who'd be willing to fuck them, which is why they're so upset with gay people. Because gay people are having good sex, while they can't get any because they're fucking incels.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is the difference between you and a heterosexual non-christian in the eyes of a Christian? Nothing. It has NOTHING to do with what particular sin a person is involved in. In our worldview, you both need God equally. It makes no sense whatsoever to call a non-christian out because of a particular sin.

The difference is that I deserve basic human rights and equal protection under law, in the eyes of many christians...whereas a homosexual does not.

[SteveII]

Its a legal contract between two people. The genders/sexes of those two people have no effect on the contract. It's really sad to watch bigots pretend they have some genuine reason to protest.

Dropping the redundant restriction also stops any concern about transgender or intersex people marrying. It's two adults, making an agreement between themselves. It doesn't involve anyone else, so I find it bizarre anyone else thinks they should get a say.

I also want to note that any religious ceremony surrounding a marriage is just that. It doesn't create a marriage in the eyes of the law. A further secular legal document is required for that. If a religious person really did only care about being married "in the eyes of God", then they'd have no need for that secular document.

Believing that marriage is a legal contract is foolish simplistic nonsense. It is an institution that is and has been foundational to human flourishing longer than history. The institution contains the concept of commitments, bonds, emotions, sex, family, children, extended family bonds, economics, and a host of other small nuances.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like the kind of thing we;d want all people to have access to.

[Divinity]

Sounds like the kind of thing we;d want all people to have access to.

Maybe if you're a decent human being.

But if you're a Christian, the last thing you want is equal rights for anyone that's not also Christian.

[SteveII]

It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

Chief Justice Roberts disagrees with you:

In his dissent, Roberts argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided not by the courts but by the public process.
"Just who do you think we are?" Roberts asked, calling the majority's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment."
He implored his audience to "understand well" what his dissent is about.
"It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples," he said. "It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes under the law."
Note he refers to his brethren as "lawyers."
Roberts said that the Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
"The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition," he said.
Roberts eviscerated his colleagues for "stealing this issue from the people" and in doing so "casting a cloud" over same-sex marriage.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/...index.html

[Mister Agenda]

So what? How is that an argument to not allow them? You seem to be literally saying it shouldn't be allowed because gay people are a minority.

No, your point was to weaken the concept of marriage defined as between a man and a women by bringing in historical references to homosexual relationships. My answer was to address that point. 

My argument is that instead of a democratic process, 5 people redefined a concept so old. Why do I care? Just the principle of the thing. Justice Roberts sums it up:

In his dissent, Roberts argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided not by the courts but by the public process.
"Just who do you think we are?" Roberts asked, calling the majority's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment."
He implored his audience to "understand well" what his dissent is about.
"It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples," he said. "It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes under the law."
Note he refers to his brethren as "lawyers."
Roberts said that the Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
"The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition," he said.
Roberts eviscerated his colleagues for "stealing this issue from the people" and in doing so "casting a cloud" over same-sex marriage.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/...index.html

The USA is a constitutional republic, not a mob democracy. As the saying goes, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, the sheep loses. In the USA, minorities have rights that can't be easily voted away by the majority. To deprive someone of the opportunity to take part in an action freely allowed to others, it must be shown that barring them from doing so is allowed under the constitution or show a compelling interest in enforcing the restriction for such reasons as national security or because it would cause greater harm to the rights of other citizens. The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility to determine cases concerning these matters. I don't always agree with their decisions, and expect to disagree more in the near future, but if they make a wrong decision, it's not because it wasn't enough people deciding it. If Americans don't like the way the laws are interpreted, they have avenues to address that. New laws can be made that are more in line with the constitution. The constitution itself can be amended, if enough people agree with you that it should be. If you're so into the majority determining what's right and wrong, try that.