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

[SteveII]

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.

#2 only recently and not as full as you need to make a case that it is has much to do with the legal system and rights.

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.

Nope. Taxes have to do with tax law, not marriage law. Next of kin have to do with medical and privacy laws, not marriage law. There is a set of laws when dissolving a marriage because it is necessary to settle a civil dispute between divorcing people. Family law protect children from adults.  

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.

I said most jurisdictions. I see you ignored the paragraph before where you got your info--didn't fit your narrative? 

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.

[Ravenshire]

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.

[polymath257]

Except for equal treatment under the law. Marriage is a legal institution, Steve. Denying gays marriage is to deny them equal treatment. Keep telling yourself that you're not a bigot. It won't change the facts, but I'm sure it will make you sleep better at night.

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.

[Ravenshire]

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.

[RoadRunner79]

Why do you think it is a bad argument then. I’ll address your concerns!

First, bachelors aren't barred from entering into the legal institution of marriage so they already have equal treatment under the law. Second, by definition, bachelors are unmarried men making a married bachelor a logical impossibility.

Funny how you've used a logical impossibility and a legal impossibility (toasters for fuck's sake) to defend your bigotry against people who are fundamentally just like you except for one little thing.

It is interesting, how similar your arguments against this reasoning (when concerning bachelors) mirrors some of my own. That in this case, you don't view it as discrimination and bigotry to say that they cannot be married, and that you point out that they are not being denied the opportunity, if they come to change and fall within the definition of marriage. That you reason to bigotry in one case, and not the other, however seems inconsistent.

[Divinity]

How fucking stupid are Christians exactly? Like were they all dropped on their fucking heads by their meth-head mothers or something? I'm legit curious at this point.

[Ravenshire]

[Angrboda]

[Minimalist]

Let's see what "Murrica's Best Xhristard has to say on the subject....

[SteveII]