SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Perd Hapley]

"Society"

"State"

I'm pretty sure those are two different words with different meanings. *checks dictionary* yep, two different words that mean different things.

This thread is about the state unilaterally changing the definition of marriage. Are you saying you disagree with the recent ruling?

[Perd Hapley]

How does this decision have any impact on nuclear, man woman families whatsoever?

He's pointing out that you can't possibly blame the hetero's-only tradition of marriage on Christians or the Bible, given all of the non-Christian, non-Bible-reading cultures that have also held to that tradition. Before there was a Bible or any Christians, in fact.

[De Selby]

He's pointing out that you can't possibly blame the hetero's-only tradition of marriage on Christians or the Bible, given all of the non-Christian, non-Bible-reading cultures that have also held to that tradition. Before there was a Bible or any Christians, in fact.

Who are these non Christian, non bible reading cultures that have these beliefs?

Funny, btw, that no Jews noticed that monogamous marriage was required.  Muslims missed that rule as well.

Are these the Buddhists you're thinking of maybe?  Or Hindus?

[Balog]

Who are these non Christian, non bible reading cultures that have these beliefs?

Funny, btw, that no Jews noticed that monogamous marriage was required.  Muslims missed that rule as well.

Are these the Buddhists you're thinking of maybe?  Or Hindus?

Nice try counselor, but your moving the goal posts. We are discussing heterosexual marriage, not monogamous marriage.

[De Selby]

Nice try counselor, but your moving the goal posts. We are discussing heterosexual marriage, not monogamous marriage.

I notice you had no answer to the question I asked you there.

The point was that Christian biblical views of marriage are not universal.  They are contested, and government has no basis for adopting one religion over another.

[Balog]

I notice you had no answer to the question I asked you there.

The point was that Christian biblical views of marriage are not universal.  They are contested, and government has no basis for adopting one religion over another.

And the basis of the .gov's conditions for issuing marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.

[De Selby]

And the basis of the .gov's conditions for issuing marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.

Ok, so what's the argument for restricting them to man-woman couples only?  And how does that impact the nuclear family?

[BlueStarLizzard]

And the basis of the .gov's conditions for issuing marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.

So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?

[zxcvbob]

So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?

That's a very good point... up until the govt starts dictating what is acceptable church doctrine, and making their version of "marriage" compulsory.  And I don't think that is very far away.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know, Balog. Do you think they really don't get it, or are they just playing dumb? 

Ok, so what's the argument for restricting them to man-woman couples only? 

What argument kept marriage limited to heterosexual couples for the past x-thousand years? 

Have you read the Chief Justice's dissent yet? It would help you with some of that confusion. If you were open to reason, of course.

[Perd Hapley]

That's a very good point...

  Actually, it's a dead-stupid question. Unless, of course, Balog swore off caring about anything beyond religion. I mean, he could be a civic-minded person who ponders political matters aside from his religion.

[De Selby]

I don't know, Balog. Do you think they really don't get it, or are they just playing dumb? 

What argument kept marriage limited to heterosexual couples for the past x-thousand years? 

The Bible as read by Christians, mostly.  If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.

[Ron]

So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?

Because if the government can change the meaning of words by diktat it then can make the law mean whatever it wants.

Even the opposite of the intention of those who drafted the law.

[Tallpine]

The Bible as read by Christians, mostly.  If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.

Maybe you could point out all the historical societies where homosexual "marriage" was practiced

(and I don't mean that homosexuality was just known of and/or tolerated - I mean that same sex couples were considered "married")

[Ron]

Or great societies with alternative family structures to the man/woman having children and raising them among extended family.





 

[Perd Hapley]

What argument kept marriage limited to heterosexual couples for the past x-thousand years? 

The Bible as read by Christians, mostly.  If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.

So the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus that you referenced earlier; those societies all wanted homosexual marriage for hundreds or even thousands of years, but were kept from doing so by Christians making Biblically-based arguments? How long before the birth of Christianity, or before the collation of the biblical books was this occurring, would you say? Can you tell us anything about the nature of the Christians' time travel technology?

[De Selby]

The Bible as read by Christians, mostly.  If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.


So the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus that you referenced earlier; those societies all wanted homosexual marriage for hundreds or even thousands of years, but were kept from doing so by Christians making Biblically-based arguments? How long before the birth of Christianity, or before the collation of the biblical books was this occurring, would you say? Can you tell us anything about the nature of the Christians' time travel technology?

Sorry fistful - you missed the point.  And are now obviouly making the error of moral argument by dictionary.  All of them have widely different versions of what a marriage entails.  If the definition of "marriage" is so obvious or universal, that isn't possible.  The translator who came up with the equivalent terms doesn't get to determine at all what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of a marriage - that is a judgment call, not a definition.

Buddhists, muslims, and Hindus and various non-Christian societies all tolerated or formally recognised same sex arrangements over the years.  The fact that Christians didn't translate those words as "marriage" into English is a judgment call, which you're now trying to twist into a moral argument because it comes from the dictionary.  Well, it ended up there because of a judgment call in the first place.

So I'll ask again - what's this non-religious basis for discriminating against gay relationships?  If it's just that other socieities do it, I shouldn't have to explain why that's absurd.

[De Selby]

Maybe you could point out all the historical societies where homosexual "marriage" was practiced

(and I don't mean that homosexuality was just known of and/or tolerated - I mean that same sex couples were considered "married")

This is a red herring - marriage has meant ownership of a woman as near chattel in many cultures (most) as well, but I don't see anyone arguing that giving women individual legal rigts in marriage somehow undoes the institution.

You are picking and choosing what exceeds the definition to suit your chosen prejudice.

[Ron]

Mistranslation!

What a load of bs

There may have been pragmatic arrangements regarding gay couples but they weren't considered marriage.

Plenty of history of that in the states also.

It just isn't marriage, by definition.

[De Selby]

Mistranslation!

What a load of bs

There may have been pragmatic arrangements regarding gay couples but they weren't considered marriage.

Plenty of history of that in the states also.

It just isn't marriage, by definition.

And who decided what the definition is?  Last I checked merriam Webster had no authority to determine rights and obligations.

[Ron]

And who decided what the definition is?  Last I checked merriam Webster had no authority to determine rights and obligations.

Who decides definitions in law dictionaries?

Common usage of a word for hundreds of years in our language, thousands in the classical languages is a pretty good indicator of what the definition should be of a word.

[TommyGunn]

I notice you had no answer to the question I asked you there.

The point was that Christian biblical views of marriage are not universal.  They are contested, and government has no basis for adopting one religion over another.

But does that mean government cannot enact a standard  for marriage?   For most of America, most of the time, it's been  (1) man married to (1) woman.  
If we accept gay marriage, what about the nutcake who wants to marry his ox?  
Or goat?  
Christian Biblical views of marriage may not be universal but why should that mean we should become a potpourri of the whole world's customs?

[MechAg94]

And who decided what the definition is?  Last I checked merriam Webster had no authority to determine rights and obligations.

And who decided definitions should be put into question simply because they don't support your point?  If you have evidence supporting alternative definitions, please enlighten us. 

[MechAg94]

This is a red herring - marriage has meant ownership of a woman as near chattel in many cultures (most) as well, but I don't see anyone arguing that giving women individual legal rigts in marriage somehow undoes the institution.

You are picking and choosing what exceeds the definition to suit your chosen prejudice.

A straw man does not negate a red herring.   

[Tallpine]

This is a red herring - marriage has meant ownership of a woman as near chattel in many cultures (most) as well, but I don't see anyone arguing that giving women individual legal rigts in marriage somehow undoes the institution.

You are picking and choosing what exceeds the definition to suit your chosen prejudice.

Just go "marry" your self then. 

First you make the claim that heterosexual only marriage is a strictly Judeo-Christian concept and then refuse to provide any evidence to back your claim.

You are nothing but a god damned troll