Oh I get that, people digging into their 2000 year old book and saying this and that hurts their feelings.
Well, guess what? I don’t think making laws based on peoples hurt feelings is a good idea. Follow that reasoning and you will ban people drawing Mohamed. An asshole thing to do, but you can’t make laws because peoples feelings get hurt.
There are always caveats in any law, say for marriage. So long as it is between 2 adults, of consenting age, are not related. But KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). If a society has decided (quite rightly IMO) there should be no discrimination towards gay people, then there is no grounds for discriminating against same sex marriage. To further that argument for the sake of @finley and artificial insemination. If a society has decided that a national health care system should extend that right to infertile couples, they should absolutely extend that right to say a 2 women couple.
If a person believes in the definition of marriage from the judeo Christian origin. It really states marriage is God’s authority. So either you come to the conclusion no one can get married by the state or that it doesn’t really matter because its just a essentially a legal document that means nothing religiously.
Definition of marriage (nothing to do about rights, just facts): the union of a man and a woman.
I’m a single man: do I have the right to proclaim myself “married”? you know the answer, this one is easy
I’m a guy and want to be with another guy. Are we a married couple? the argument here is that no,
I’m not married, or we are not a married couple, because one of us is a man, so we don’t match the definition
This is not necessarily anything to do with the Bible BTW.
Most of reasonable conservative people would tell you to fuck in whatever position you want, and would agree on the society granting you some legal rights and recognize your civil status, but probably not on calling it the same way than the way you call to the union of a man and woman.
Again, it’s not necessarily anything to do with rights. Even if there could be a discussion about what rights two men or two women could acquire when they formalize their union.
But the same applies if we discuss anything really. For example if a motorcycle is a car. You can argue that NOW cars don’t necessarily need to have 4 wheels, but I would argue that that’s what we always understood by car.
If you are playing semantics you are even worse, because you are saying that if I don’t call a man and a man in the same bed “marriage” I’m discriminating them. WHY?
But he has a point that not everyone agrees on the definition of marriage and the origins of what we currently draw the idea of marriage from is from the judeo Christian context. Yes I know there’s concepts on marriage before it, but those aren’t the origins of where the West came up with the state institution of marriage.
Taking out the religious context. Marriage has been traditionally defined being between a man and a women.
I don’t think it’s semantics. We are talking about the fundemtal definition of something very important.
Nobody tells them that they can not love each other, fuck each other, share the same roof and share their properties. But nobody should tell the rest that we have to call that union in the same way we call a man and a woman doing those things.
It does matter, we are talking about the definition of marriage. Most western countries would have derived the concept of the institution of marriage from the religious traditions of it. Not from some tribe in Australia or 3000bc China.