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

[Amarok]

[Angrboda]

[Angrboda]

As noted in another thread, the fact that same-sex marriages had to be explicitly outlawed seems to strongly suggest that same-sex marriages were in fact a reality at the time.  The idea that they would make a law outlawing a practice that did not occur is absurd.  And thus, Steve's contention that same-sex marriage does not exist in history would seem to be an exaggeration, at best. 

Not at all. A law against it could also mean that some either tried it, proposed it, or heard of it and the powers that be employed the same reasoning I did to deny the change in definition. Without more information you are making a lot of unsupported inferences. For example, if the modern courts had upheld the traditional definition, you would never say that same sex marriages were part of the definition of marriage. You would be arguing in a circle. 

[robvalue]

I'm going to try and break this down one more time. This is how things seem to me.

You could think of all legal contracts in three sections :

1) The agreed legal terms between the relevant parties

2) Whatever further personal meaning the contract may have to the parties

3) How the contract is viewed by other people

On the whole, these three are independent. The law doesn't care about 2 and 3, as long as they don't somehow impede the whole legal system from operating properly.

In the case of marriage, it is a legal contract in many countries, including America. Whatever it was in the past is irrelevant to this point. I don't know how it's possible to even dispute this.

Point 2 would be the emotional weight the marriage has to the couple, and any additional promises they may make to each other. If these promises don't get incorporated into the marriage contract, then they only matter to the couple, and the law isn't generally going to consider them.

Point 3 would be where Steve and RR comes in. They may view a same-sex marriage as "not a real marriage", or "not a marriage", or even "not a legal contract". It ultimately doesn't matter what they think. This doesn't affect points 1 or 2. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, but it carries no weight if it isn't backed up by legal evidence; nor do the couple have to pay any attention to it for point 2.

I'm not sure how much simpler I could make this. The only argument left is that the law shouldn't have changed to allow same-sex marriages, for some reason. That's a matter of opinion, from a moral/societal perspective, unless there is (again) some legal support. Obviously there is not, since the high court have ruled after considering every relevant aspect.

---

PS: the only other conclusion I can come to is that some people consider marriage to be magical, and not under the domain of human law.

[Ravenshire]

Well, Stevie has repeatedly claimed that marriage is neither a religious construct nor a legal institution. It must be, in his mind, solely a societal construct. Even if that were the case, our society has evolved to the point that were more accommodating of differences than we have been historically. How this can be anything other than good boggles my mind. Of course, there will always be those who don't want "others" joining their exclusive club.

[robvalue]

I think he's conflating at least 3 things at once, intentionally or otherwise, to try and justify his conclusion to himself. That's all he's going to achieve here; it's not like the law is going to be repealed if he can come up with a killer argument, and it's obvious no one is buying what he has to sell.

I picked up on his phrase "society crumbling", and I can only assume this means moving further away from a Christian-dominated culture where everything is about Jesus, and Christianity can dictate to the masses. It's genuinely sad to me that what I see as a crucial, ground breaking decision could be seen by someone else as a step backwards. Children born now, who don't get brainwashed with bigotry, are going to have a tough time understanding why anyone would have ever wanted to deny certain people the right to be married.

PS: if this is about God's blessings or definitions, then I think he can handle it himself, as I always say. He doesn't need Steve presuming to speak for him.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yabut, what if god sodom and gomorrahs the US for supporting sinful behavior....or what if some christers eternal soul is damned to hell for the contents of their own conscience or supporting equality under law, or the secular legal structure of the US?

If every god fearing christian doesn;t do their level best to shit on the people (jewish) magic book says to shit on.......are they even True Christians? Isn;t that the (bad, double-plus ungood) government infringing on their religious rights, somehow?

---

Some People™ suffer from a base and common fear, suspicion, and intolerance of that other™ that they have never had to directly confront.  The irony of the arguments proposed as a rationalization is that they are..on so many levels, worse than simply holding such a bias.  We're not entirely in control of our biases..either their origins or their continued presence within us.  It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge that in some specific sense we are bigoted, but that doesn't diminish the reality of that fact.  We may desire to vomit up a laundry list of ad hoc shit to deflect from that realization...but here again the fact of the matter remains.  

Bigots are bigots.  They are bigots when they contend that god told them to be bigots.  They are bigots when they contend to have arrived at their bigotry all by their one-sies..that this bigotry was coincidentally, and conveniently, justified post facto by magic books. Thing is, people can be bigots.  It's when the vacuum of their bigoted views become an impetus to action that it becomes intolerable.  Bigots should feel free..by all means, to not date a black guy, or not blow somebody..or marry a guy named Bill for all of the bigoted reasons their withered hearts can conjure up, lol.  They should feel free to strongly dislike a stranger for reasons they will refuse to acknowledge in polite company.  I could go on and on..but the one thing they are not free to do, is to allow their personally held bigotry to create a two class system within US law.

[robvalue]

All I'd like them to do is take ownership of the fact that they want homosexuals to have less rights under the law. It's then a matter of a difference of opinion. But they won't do that; Steve even tries to pretend it's not a legal matter. If it wasn't, then no one would care what religious people had to say. No one is trying to change what a "marriage in god's eyes" is, as if we could ever do that anyway. He can't make his mind up which one is he is talking about.

Even if the argument is, "We should do what God wants", my objections are:

1) We have know way of knowing what God wants.

2) Why should we do what he wants? If it's because of wisdom, the idea should be defensible. If it's just because of threats, then I don't know why Christians are so bothered about what will happen to "the gays", since they already think any non-Christians are headed for a bad judgement.

[The Grand Nudger]

Both questions are irrelevant, in the US.. imo.  

Even if we did know what god wants.....that has no bearing on our laws.  We are explicitly prohibited from whittling our legal system into a de facto theocracy.  

Even if non-christians are "headed for bad judgement" that is a matter between them and someone else's god(lol).....not the state.

[Cecelia]

Christians: God will judge me if I don't fight gay marriage.

Also Christians: Donate more money to charity? ARe you crazY? I worked hard for that money to go to dirty free loaders. Get those illegal immigrants out of this country, too. Who gives a crap about the kids? Those parents should've never come here in the first place.