RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 24, 2018 at 6:13 am
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2018 at 6:39 am by SteveII.)
(July 23, 2018 at 4:11 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(July 23, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: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.
(July 23, 2018 at 5:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(July 23, 2018 at 3:32 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
Quote: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.
(July 23, 2018 at 5:06 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:(July 23, 2018 at 4:03 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
