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

[KevinM1]

Meaningless statement.  What is the principle, and how is it being violated?


So?  This is an actual "I dislike change" statement.  Meaningless when it comes to policy.


Public opinion was in favor of same-sex marriage before United States v. Windsor.  Moreover, SCOTUS' job is to determine the constitutionality of the country's laws. They determined that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.  


Opinion stated as fact.  And, really, if you want to talk about a crumbling fabric of society, I'd think divorce would be much higher on your hit list.


It's ordained by god, but not religious?  Talk about wanting your cake and eating it, too.  In any event, this belief doesn't reflect reality.  In the US, marriage is a secular arrangement between a couple and the government.  Nothing more.

So, "I fear change," "I don't think this one particular definition should change," and not much else.  None of it rational.

Also, civil unions weren't a realistic option simply due to the notion that "separate but equal isn't equal."  We (well, some of us) learned from the Civil Rights era.

I couldn't care less about your objections to various people's reasons. The objection could be because you flipped a coin for all I care. The point is that objecting to the change in definition does not entail bigotry. The funny thing is that almost all of you thought it a no-brainer that it was connected.  No one has been able to make that case--not even close.

If the result is the same (not wanting people in a different demographic to enjoy the same rights and privileges you currently enjoy), then what does it matter? "Ha ha! I was against same-sex marriage for purely asinine reasons, not hateful ones!" isn't a victory.

[Angrboda]

He's seemingly impervious to facts. Both history, and his own book, prove him completely wrong.

And even if things have been fucking stupid for 10,000 years, so what? Progress is made by challenging bad old ideas.

"The civilization of man has increased just to the same extent that religious power has decreased. The intellectual
advancement of man depends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth. The church never
enabled a human being to make even one of these exchanges; on the contrary, all her power has been used to prevent
them."

~ Robert G. Ingersoll

[Pat Mustard]

Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

The definition of marriage was already changed when the government got involved as opposed to the church controlling everything.
.

The church didn't actually get involved in marriage until well into the middle ages. The first church liturgy in the rcc wasn't written until 1180. It was a combination of nobles needing legitimacy for dubious unions (often the victor in a minor war forcing the loser's daughter to marry him, or a marriage not sanctioned by a liege lord) and the money to be made that got church weddings going.

[robvalue]

I don't know why a religious person would care so much about what is allowed in secular, legal marriage. Isn't their religious marriages the important thing to them? Such things haven't changed, although I suspect that if they don't eventually start doing gay marriages they'll lose traction more and more with newer generations.

[Silver]

I don't know why a religious person would care so much about what is allowed in secular, legal marriage. Isn't their religious marriages the important thing to them? Such things haven't changed, although I suspect that if they don't eventually start doing gay marriages they'll lose traction more and more with newer generations.

The solution would be to allow churches to do their religious marriages and the courts to do their secular marriages, which was never a problem until gay marriage entered the equation.

I still don't see the problem, however.

The church is not being forced to perform a marriage between same sex couples.  No one is advocating for such a thing.  Let the churches remain bigoted, as far as I am concerned.

So long as same sex couples are legally capable of marrying by secular law via the court, there should be no problem.

[Pat Mustard]

That's the dog's bollox right there.

[SteveII]

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

Part of the problem was that civil unions did not in fact provide equal rights. 

I don't think so.  All of the legal and civil issues could have been easily handled. Laying claim to a word that does not apply is not a right. 

Thus the push for gay marriages.  Whether or not people would have been satisfied with civil unions if they had done so, we'll never know.  I think what most people are arguing, contra your view, is that it is a question of whether the institution should change or not, and there is plenty of push to accommodate such a change.  Would religious people object to a separate institution that was essentially identical to marriage but involving same-sex couples?  I rather suspect they would. That seems to be supported by history.

Seems like an assertion to me. I couldn't care less about civil unions back then--and I am pretty far down the conservative continuum. In any case, civil unions were far more supported than changing the definition of marriage in conservative circles so it makes your point moot. 

  Ultimately, the religious objection to gay marriage appears to rest on religiously sanctioned opposition to homosexuality.  The idea that the debate is about changing the definition of the word seems disingenuous and an attempt to get around the actual substance of the issue. 

Pew research 2017 says that 85% of nones support gay marriage. In a different slice, 85% of self-described liberals support it. That leaves 15% that don't. That seems to indicate that the objection is not entirely religiously based. 

Are religious people necessarily bigoted for following a prescription dictated by their religion?  Perhaps that's a more relevant question, the answer to which, I don't know.

My point has been that it does not have to be religious--but yes, that's a good question. I don't think anyone here has or can make that rational argument. They just assert that it is so.

---

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.

Civil unions isn't enough because 'separate but equal' isn't equal. Either the name changes and *everyone* gets married or the name stays the same and *nobody* is married under law.

That's really poor reasoning there. 'Separate but equal' is equal. What it's not is 'the same'. The law has nothing to do with marriage. It merely regulates a very minor portion mainly for record keeping and so that when it unravels, there is justice. IT IS NOT a legal concept or institution. 

1. What principle, exactly? That no definitions can change?

2. So what? People got attached to having slaves.

3. It *wasn't* just 5 people who decided. There were far, far more than just 5 people who were on that side. But in a *court case*, it is the judges that decide on the merits of that particular case.

4. Or it is a symbol of an *inclusive* culture that shows the strengths of upholding  freedom.

5. Irrelevant to a secular society.

None of your 'reasons' hold a milliliter of water. Except, that the *only* reason for 1) and 2) is bigotry.

Yet, they are ALL reason to object to what happened that are not themselves bigoted. You saying so is still an assertion without reasoning.

---

I couldn't care less about your objections to various people's reasons. The objection could be because you flipped a coin for all I care. The point is that objecting to the change in definition does not entail bigotry. The funny thing is that almost all of you thought it a no-brainer that it was connected.  No one has been able to make that case--not even close.

If the result is the same (not wanting people in a different demographic to enjoy the same rights and privileges you currently enjoy), then what does it matter?  "Ha ha!  I was against same-sex marriage for purely asinine reasons, not hateful ones!" isn't a victory.

That is a straw man because changing the definition of marriage was not the only way to ensure the "rights and privileges" I currently enjoy. There is no right to the definition of a word.

[Amarok]

[Ravenshire]

Since you keep ignoring the question, I'll ask again. How has the change to the definition of the word marriage impacted you, Steve? There must be some reason you're in such a twist over it.

[polymath257]

Yes, how many words change their definitions over time? Pretty much every single one. And they change because the society needs them to change.

I've yet to see a reason why *not* to change the definition if that makes things better (which it would).

The only reason i can see is that they think homosexuality is automatically immoral. And yes, that is bigotry.