"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

To bad for Steve we have proven his clinging to a regressive definition for regressive reasons is bigoted

[Angrboda]

[Ravenshire]

To bad for Steve we have proven his clinging to a regressive definition for regressive reasons is bigoted

Well, his "that's the way it's always been done" argument would carry some weight if he could show it's the best way. The problem for him, is that he can't, and he won't recognize that the best way to protect his right is to protect everyone's rights. Even if you don't like "those" people.

[SteveII]

---

Look back all the way through. My point has always been that a preference to the old definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. People have spent 40 pages unsuccessfully trying to prove that it does. I would have stopped long ago, but you know how this works, a new batch of people take up the cause and rehash everything again.  They can't figure out why they can't prove what they have been told--all who opposed gay marriage are bigots.

Any time you exclude a group of people because they're (insert trait you find undesireable here), it's bigotry you chuckle-fuck.

I agree with you if I were excluding someone from something.  The definition never included them and I have my reasons to preferring the old definition. To make your case, you have to show that...nevermind, it's not possible to show because there is not logical connecting between preferring the old definition and intolerance.

[Crossless2.0]

Fine, Steve. You're not a bigot. You're just irrelevant.

Fuck it. Let's move on.

[SteveII]

[Angrboda]

[KevinM1]

No, marriage in the US is not ultimately a secular arrangement between couples and the government. That's ridiculous for several reasons--the main one being that most jurisdictions did not require marriage licenses until the late 19th century. Were those millions of married couple mistaken? Secondly, a marriage license is the government only intrusion into the institution of marriage. How does a marriage license do any more than keep a record and make sure you are not marrying a minor?

Steve, this is simple:

1. There's no mandatory religious aspect to marriage.
2. There is a mandatory secular/governmental aspect to marriage.

Why is #2 a thing? It's more than just about not marrying a minor. Again: taxes, next of kin, asset handling, etc. If there's money and/or property involved, then there needs to be a way to track ownership claims. This was especially true at a time when family assets/businesses were more prevalent.

Keep in mind, you're not even correct about your assertion that marriage licenses weren't required until the late 19th century. Massachusetts has required them since 1639, with the idea/requirement spreading across the nation over the course of time until widespread adoption in the mid-19th century. Moreover, marriage licenses had existed in Britain since the 14th century, so, it's not as though it was a new idea to the US.

Also, as time has gone on, any religious requirement for marriage has vanished.

[Angrboda]

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."

[Ravenshire]

---

Any time you exclude a group of people because they're (insert trait you find undesireable here), it's bigotry you chuckle-fuck.

I agree with you if I were excluding someone from something.  The definition never included them and I have my reasons to preferring the old definition. To make your case, you have to show that...nevermind, it's not possible to show because there is not logical connecting between preferring the old definition and intolerance.

But they were excluded from marriage, by definition, Steve, until recently. No thanks to knuckle dragging bigots like yourself, that has changed.

Unless you're going to argue that they could always get married to any woman they choose. In that case, I'll sell you any shirt in the store. Except that one. Yeah, that one you actually like and would actually wear. Yeah that one. You can't buy that one. But, you can buy any one of the shirts for sale that you have no interest in buying.

Yeah, it really is like that.