RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 23, 2018 at 5:06 pm
(July 23, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote:(July 23, 2018 at 2:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: 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.
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.
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.
