RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 26, 2018 at 6:38 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2018 at 7:07 am by SteveII.)
(July 25, 2018 at 5:19 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:Quote:This research indicates that much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is grounded in sexual prejudice, despite that opposition often being publicly justified on different grounds. But, a modest proportion of conservatives’ opposition was not explained by prejudice. This fraction may reflect principled objections based on conservative political or religious beliefs.
Attitudes to same-sex marriage have many psychological roots, and they can change
This proves my position. You can be opposed to same sex marriage and not be a bigot.
My opinion is that more people would have reported opposition to the change in definition if it hadn't been drilled into their heads that to believe that is bigotry. I don't say that is true, nor do I need it to be true--just seems like a reasonable thing to happen over time.
(July 25, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: More from the article just quoted:
"van der Toorn’s work indicated that opposition to same-sex marriage mainly reflects resistance to change rather than opposition to equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage often criticise opponents for their lack of concern for equality. However, opponents’ attitudes may spring from objections to change rather than from a desire for inequality per se."
Another point I touched on but did not put so well...
(July 25, 2018 at 6:34 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:(July 25, 2018 at 5:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: More from the article just quoted:
"van der Toorn’s work indicated that opposition to same-sex marriage mainly reflects resistance to change rather than opposition to equality. Proponents of same-sex marriage often criticise opponents for their lack of concern for equality. However, opponents’ attitudes may spring from objections to change rather than from a desire for inequality per se."
Regardless of the source of the opponents objections to gay marriage, if their efforts come to fruition, the end result is the same. Illegal discrimination. At that point, whether it stems from bigotry or not becomes irrelevant.
There is a huge flaw in your reasoning. For that to be true, there would have had to be no other way to stop discrimination. There is.
(July 25, 2018 at 6:37 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(July 25, 2018 at 12:15 pm)SteveII Wrote: Wrong again. Marriage is not a legal institution--in any way. It is easy to see that out of the 10,000 years of existence, the government has imposed a few rules for like the last 5 minutes.
Just wow.
Yes, in fact, it *is* a legal institution. There have been rules and regulations surrounding marriage for as long as we have records. That is hardly just the last 5 minutes.
For that matter, I'd like to see your evidence concerning the nature of marriage, say, 7000 years ago. Any evidence at all?
And, in a *secular* society, the *legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*. This is why there are tax benefits, survivor benefits, ability to make decisions, etc.
Anything *other* than the *legal* aspect is fluff and I really don't care about it. What I care about is equal treatment under the law: that means that *every* couple who wishes to marry can legally do so with *exactly* the same rules and responsibilities.
Answer this question: are there times or places that didn't/don't require a government marriage license to get married (or even better--no government)? Yes or no? If you answer yes, then marriage is not a legal institution. To think that the "*legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*" well...I feel sorry for you. There are like a thousand intrinsic reason to get married and maybe 3 legal reasons.
BTW, the "legal" aspects you brought up are separate laws (tax, insurance, privacy laws--not 'marriage laws') codifying ancient aspects of marriage.
(July 25, 2018 at 6:45 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:(July 25, 2018 at 6:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: I think you are confused why I am making a big deal about marriage not being a legal matter (besides it's true). It is to defeat any notion that this has anything to do with legal rights I am denying by my desire to keep the old definition.(my bold)
How about kinship rights? Or would you be ok with it if after devoting your life to a life partner, your life partner is dying of some horrible disease, has made their wishes clear to you and the family that disowned them decades previously shows up and makes all the decisions without your input, without caring what you or your life partner decided and even has you tossed out of the hospital for having the temerity to speak up on behalf of someone you now know far better than they do? Would you be ok with that? Because that used to happen to gay couples all the fucking time before gay marriages started being recognized and kin rights granted to the same sex spouse.
Yet you claim their were no legal rights being denied.
That doesn't even go into the tax laws and other such that you tried to hand wave away.
No, my objection to changing the definition does not have anything to do with a desire to deny rights. Rights are granted by law. Laws could have been added/changed without changing the definition.
