(June 27, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Iroscato Wrote:(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling. For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others. So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling. On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral. I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that. I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable. A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status. I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men. Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written? The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.
Your humanity is struggling with your institutionalised bigotry. It's a common side effect of addiction to Christcrack.
I think rather that it's you who have no concern for the institutions that have a lot of meaning for many. If some guy wants to join a sorority, do you think we should grant him that right and change the definition of a sorority?
