RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 25, 2018 at 6:55 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2018 at 7:00 am by SteveII.)
(July 24, 2018 at 4:52 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(July 24, 2018 at 4:05 pm)SteveII Wrote: I will clarify: There is no right to take for yourself a definition of a word that does not apply to you. You may wish/want it to, but there is no right. You might even have good compelling arguments why it should be changed. The problem is that a great number of people act like it is a right and then accuses anyone who does not agree of bigotry. Sorry, does not work that way.
If civil unions don't have equal status under the law, then someone designed the law poorly. If someone thinks that gay marriage has somehow magically been made the same as the institution the word has represented for the last 10,000 years, they aren't thinking straight (hey, an unintended pun). They are still fundamentally different.
Once again, simply read 'secular marriage' whenever you see the word in a secular context. That way it can be the same for straights and gays.
There is no *fundamental* difference. The *only* point of marriage is to give societal recognition to a bond between individuals for making a family unit. It isn't to raise kids, or else couples who are childless couldn't really be married. It isn't a religious activity because it is done by a secular society. It is an economic and social institution. And as such, it should be open to couples who wish their relationship to be recognized by the society at large. I fail to see how gender is relevant *at all*.
And it is your opinion that marriage only means these things. My list is significantly longer. In addition, I have beliefs that we were made for a purpose. One of these purposes was to get married and experience this longer list.
Quote:Your definition argument is weak. Yes, we get to change definitions of words to suit how our society is as it changes. Yes, that includes even 'fundamental' institutions. And yes, it is a right to have equal treatment under the law. Tradition is the worst argument for bigotry.
There is no more fundamental institution than marriage to the development of all of civilization. You cannot find a comparison, let alone a comparison who's definition has changed. This line of argumentation is not just weak, it is just not valid.
The fact that my opinion is that the definition should not change CANNOT itself be deemed intolerant and so by definition, is not bigoted.
(July 24, 2018 at 9:06 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:(July 24, 2018 at 7:22 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I really don't understand why the issue here *except* as rank bigotry.
My marriage to my wife isn't affected by two men getting married or two women getting married.
If anything, I feel it is enhanced because the institution as a whole is more inclusive and thereby more in line with how it *should* be.
Seriously, if this is a definitional change, bring it on!
Of course it's bigotry. It's the most insidious kind - casual bigotry. The kind that isn't rooted in pure hate, but rather keeping The Other in their place. Homosexuals are fine... until they act on their urges and try to get married. That's a step too far. They should just be chaste and not want to strive for the same kind of social status as everyone else.
You have a definition problem. Bigotry means intolerant of another opinion or belief. You can't come close to connecting the opinion that the definition should not change with intolerance. The amusing thing is that you have been told they are connected so loud and so long that you think they are. They aren't and you can't figure out why not.
