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

[KevinM1]

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


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


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.  


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.


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.

If the result is the same (not wanting people in a different demographic to enjoy the same rights and privileges you currently enjoy), then what does it matter? "Ha ha! I was against same-sex marriage for purely asinine reasons, not hateful ones!" isn't a victory.

[Angrboda]

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.

"The civilization of man has increased just to the same extent that religious power has decreased. The intellectual
advancement of man depends upon how often he can exchange an old superstition for a new truth. The church never
enabled a human being to make even one of these exchanges; on the contrary, all her power has been used to prevent
them."

~ Robert G. Ingersoll

[Pat Mustard]

Simmer down now.... that was just a statement (not a logical claim).  And if you disagree, we can make all three instances equal again, and go back to that.  I'm not saying that they don't deserve equal rights (and dignity) as a person.  I simply don't agree with changing the definition of marriage to make up for that difference, anymore than you don't agree with it for the other differences.  There is not any rights being denied in one any more than the other. If so what are they, and why don't you think that a single person or other deserve these rights.  The law is about equal rights, not that everything is treated the same, and that we have to re-define terms, to make them the same, if they are not.

The definition of marriage was already changed when the government got involved as opposed to the church controlling everything.
.

The church didn't actually get involved in marriage until well into the middle ages. The first church liturgy in the rcc wasn't written until 1180. It was a combination of nobles needing legitimacy for dubious unions (often the victor in a minor war forcing the loser's daughter to marry him, or a marriage not sanctioned by a liege lord) and the money to be made that got church weddings going.

[robvalue]

I don't know why a religious person would care so much about what is allowed in secular, legal marriage. Isn't their religious marriages the important thing to them? Such things haven't changed, although I suspect that if they don't eventually start doing gay marriages they'll lose traction more and more with newer generations.

[Kitan Etos]

I don't know why a religious person would care so much about what is allowed in secular, legal marriage. Isn't their religious marriages the important thing to them? Such things haven't changed, although I suspect that if they don't eventually start doing gay marriages they'll lose traction more and more with newer generations.

The solution would be to allow churches to do their religious marriages and the courts to do their secular marriages, which was never a problem until gay marriage entered the equation.

I still don't see the problem, however.

The church is not being forced to perform a marriage between same sex couples.  No one is advocating for such a thing.  Let the churches remain bigoted, as far as I am concerned.

So long as same sex couples are legally capable of marrying by secular law via the court, there should be no problem.

[Pat Mustard]

That's the dog's bollox right there.

[SteveII]

[Amarok]

[Ravenshire]

Since you keep ignoring the question, I'll ask again. How has the change to the definition of the word marriage impacted you, Steve? There must be some reason you're in such a twist over it.

[polymath257]

Yes, how many words change their definitions over time? Pretty much every single one. And they change because the society needs them to change.

I've yet to see a reason why *not* to change the definition if that makes things better (which it would).

The only reason i can see is that they think homosexuality is automatically immoral. And yes, that is bigotry.