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

[KevinM1]

1. its the principle of the thing

Meaningless statement.  What is the principle, and how is it being violated?

2. people get attached to a definition after 10,000 years

So?  This is an actual "I dislike change" statement.  Meaningless when it comes to policy.

3. it's a slippery slope if 5 people can just decide for everyone. What's next from the bench?

Public opinion was in favor of same-sex marriage before United States v. Windsor.  Moreover, SCOTUS' job is to determine the constitutionality of the country's laws. They determined that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.  

4. it's a symbol of a relativistic culture which is then linked to the crumbling of the fabric of society

Opinion stated as fact.  And, really, if you want to talk about a crumbling fabric of society, I'd think divorce would be much higher on your hit list.

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.

It's ordained by god, but not religious?  Talk about wanting your cake and eating it, too.  In any event, this belief doesn't reflect reality.  In the US, marriage is a secular arrangement between a couple and the government.  Nothing more.

So, "I fear change," "I don't think this one particular definition should change," and not much else.  None of it rational.

Also, civil unions weren't a realistic option simply due to the notion that "separate but equal isn't equal." We (well, some of us) learned from the Civil Rights era.

[SteveII]

1. its the principle of the thing

Meaningless statement.  What is the principle, and how is it being violated?

2. people get attached to a definition after 10,000 years

So?  This is an actual "I dislike change" statement.  Meaningless when it comes to policy.

3. it's a slippery slope if 5 people can just decide for everyone. What's next from the bench?

Public opinion was in favor of same-sex marriage before United States v. Windsor.  Moreover, SCOTUS' job is to determine the constitutionality of the country's laws. They determined that the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.  

4. it's a symbol of a relativistic culture which is then linked to the crumbling of the fabric of society

Opinion stated as fact.  And, really, if you want to talk about a crumbling fabric of society, I'd think divorce would be much higher on your hit list.

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.

It's ordained by god, but not religious?  Talk about wanting your cake and eating it, too.  In any event, this belief doesn't reflect reality.  In the US, marriage is a secular arrangement between a couple and the government.  Nothing more.

So, "I fear change," "I don't think this one particular definition should change," and not much else.  None of it rational.

Also, civil unions weren't a realistic option simply due to the notion that "separate but equal isn't equal."  We (well, some of us) learned from the Civil Rights era.

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.

[Angrboda]

Exactly. it's the biggest objection to gay marriage. And it is an absolutely trivial one considering the legal context. Why the heat over a definition like this unless it is due to bigotry? Seriously. What other reason would there be to get this bent out of shape in having two men in a legal marriage?

All that is required is that legally, the bond between gays is exactly the same as the bond between straights.

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. 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. 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. 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.

[robvalue]

Steve continues to think religious beliefs have a place in secular law. Just Christian ones of course, and just Christian ones that agree with him, I guess.

He's continuing to act as the classic "everything is my business" Christian that gives them a bad name.

[Foxaèr]

Christian marriages are based upon the teachings of Jesus and the Paul the Apostle.[214] As of 2015 many[quantify] Christian denominations regard marriage as a sacrament, sacred institution, or covenant,[215] but this was not always the case before the 1184 Council of Verona officially recognized marriage as a sacrament.[216][217] Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime."

[217][218]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#M...d_religion

[Fake Messiah]

You mean the 10,000 year old definition that marriage is between one man and many wives?

Divinity, that is too complicated for Steve to understand. He heard in the church that marriage is set in the Bible by one man and the woman and yet the Bible claims differently so his head would explode if he tried to think about it.

[robvalue]

He's seemingly impervious to facts. Both history, and his own book, prove him completely wrong.

And even if things have been fucking stupid for 10,000 years, so what? Progress is made by challenging bad old ideas.

[Ravenshire]

Steve continues to think religious beliefs have a place in secular law. Just Christian ones of course, and just Christian ones that agree with him, I guess.

He's continuing to act as the classic "everything is my business" Christian that gives them a bad name.

And, he chooses to ignore the question he can't answer without making himself look like a completely ignorant, bigoted, asshole. How the changed definition impacts him. Hell, I even asked nicely.

[robvalue]

Steve continues to think religious beliefs have a place in secular law. Just Christian ones of course, and just Christian ones that agree with him, I guess.

He's continuing to act as the classic "everything is my business" Christian that gives them a bad name.

And, he chooses to ignore the question he can't answer without making himself look like a completely ignorant, bigoted, asshole. How the changed definition impacts him. Hell, I even asked nicely.

I'll tell you the honest answer he won't give: he feels his own marriage is now devalued.

You know, if God has a problem with how we're doing things, I really think he can handle things himself. He can't be both all-powerful and in need of busybodies trying to oppress people.

---

PS: it's clear to me that Steve's real issue is with there being secular law in the first place.

[polymath257]

Exactly. it's the biggest objection to gay marriage. And it is an absolutely trivial one considering the legal context. Why the heat over a definition like this unless it is due to bigotry? Seriously. What other reason would there be to get this bent out of shape in having two men in a legal marriage?

All that is required is that legally, the bond between gays is exactly the same as the bond between straights.

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.

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.