Blablahb said:
Uhm... Nope. Marriage is the state recognition and thus formalisation of a relationship between two people, the church has nothing to do with it.
Wrong. The United States of America and its marriage laws were not established before the Bible was compiled by bronze-age men. The Bible lays out the religious context and laws of marriage.
The bible also says you have to exterminate all cities with 1 non-Christian in them, and sell you daughter as a sex slave.
And actually the bible doesn't say that all.
You're obviously an idiot. There is no way around that. You think making up biblical text then admitting to making it up is persuasive in any context?
The Bible says a lot of things, many of them atrocious. Fortunately, people pick and choose what to believe and most people choose to believe the good parts and ignore the rest. Whether you agree or disagree, these people are entitled to believe what they want, as long as they break no laws. I see no reason why you or anyone else should antagonize them and take from them their beliefs.
Why? Why are you or a church entitled to discriminate against and exclude people from marriage based on pure lunacy (don't agree with that wording, then first show empirical proof your good exists) when normal marriage without religious discrimination in it works perfectly?
A church is entitled to discriminate because its a private entity, just as you are entitled to kick out clients who don't share your views. Would you be willing to give up that freedom? If not then it's shameful and unamerican for you to demand others give up theirs.
The State is not entitled to discriminate and I never argued that it should. Reading comprehension buddy...
Or in short: Gay marriage is fine, you're the only causing the problem. Why would you choices override the rights of other people?
Surely Christians would be content with something other than marriage? Maybe a sort of legal partnership. So why shouldn't we ban marriage for Christians?
I argued that gays should be given what they want, which is equality. I also argued that religious people should be given what they want, protection of the term and concept of marriage in the religious context. I proposed this be done by stripping marriage of it's legal implications and awarding those legal implications to another term that is neutral.
You argue that we should award gays rights at the expense of the religious without any hint of compromise.
Yes, I am obviously the trouble maker here. Philistine.