(July 15, 2018 at 8:29 am)Chad32 Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 8:26 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Indeed the idea that tradition should dictate the definition of something is absurd

The argument of tradition is the best defense of people who are benefiting most from that tradition. Everyone else just needs to conform, I guess. What right does the pot have to question the potter? When he doesn't fit the mold.

There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

(July 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 8:29 am)Chad32 Wrote: The argument of tradition is the best defense of people who are benefiting most from that tradition. Everyone else just needs to conform, I guess. What right does the pot have to question the potter? When he doesn't fit the mold.

There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

My opposition doesn't need propping up. Both definitions and traditions change by necessity over time.

Quote:There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

Not really no you and your kind only define marriage on tradition their is nothing that binds your definition in the absolute you need to make a arbitrary distinction to prop up your position .You have real justification for defining marriage as you do outside your tradition which society and myself now reject .

(July 15, 2018 at 8:15 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 8:00 am)Tizheruk Wrote: We as a society do it doesn't matter how old it is we have that right . But i ask by what right do get to define it to exclude gays?

@steve.....

Yes, if it takes that. What right did a majority once have to own slaves? What right did a majority have to deny women the right to vote? If humans never questioned social norms our species wouldn't have left the caves. 

I could give a shit less if a majority wants to oppress a minority, it's wrong to treat LGBT as less than you. Your bigotry is not their baggage. They do not owe you submission.

You still are not getting it. Your analogies suck. You bring up individual rights to argue whether a definition older than history itself be set aside and a whole new definition put in it's place. No oppression of rights. No one is trying to limit one's abilities to do anything or to pursue anything. The definition is just not available to homosexual relationships. 

You can argue whether the Christian position is right or not--but that is not what is typically done. Usually it is a litany of mischaracterization, demonizing because of a fringe group, straw men, red herrings and your false analogies to shift the debate because anger is a tool the left loves to pull out. Those on the left don't even know they have been co-opted into the hate/anger game. Wake up. Have a civil discussion with someone whom you disagree and learn why they disagree. That is intelligent way.

Quote:You still are not getting it. Your analogies suck. You bring up individual rights to argue whether a definition older than history itself be set aside and a whole new definition put in it's place. No oppression of rights. No one is trying to limit one's abilities to do anything or to pursue anything. The definition is just not available to homosexual relationships.

No his analogy is spot on your no different then every other regressive civilization has overcome and yes they your are oppressing them. Yes you are stopping them from pursuing something you have no right to deny them. And yes it is available to them we already gave it to them . So go fuck yourself .

Quote:You can argue whether the Christian position is right or not--but that is not what is typically done. Usually it is a litany of mischaracterization, demonizing because of a fringe group, straw men, red herrings and your false analogies to shift the debate because anger is a tool the left loves to pull out. Those on the left don't even know they have been co-opted into the hate/anger game. Wake up. Have a civil discussion with someone whom you disagree and learn why they disagree. That is intelligent way.

It is wrong and you are wrong you position is a regressive and outdated one and they are not a fringe nor is your vile position be misunderstood . And rational human being have every right to be angry and disgusted by your views. There is no civil discussion with the uncivilized and no one cares why you bigotry exists they only need to know to oppose it in every way they can that's the ONLY intelligent way and we will beat you .

(July 15, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

My opposition doesn't need propping up. Both definitions and traditions change by necessity over time.

Some definitions do. Most do not. Is a Christian who believed that marriage was ordained by God and restated by Jesus wrong to oppose the changing of the definition? Yes or no: are the wrong?

(July 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 8:29 am)Chad32 Wrote: The argument of tradition is the best defense of people who are benefiting most from that tradition. Everyone else just needs to conform, I guess. What right does the pot have to question the potter? When he doesn't fit the mold.

There is a huge difference between the word 'definition' and 'tradition'. You need the weaker word to prop up your opposition.

@steve


Someone sold you an old book of mythology reflecting the morality OF THAT TIME. This is a no brainer. That was then, this is now. "Yucky" to you does not give you any fucking right to deny rights to others. LGBT are not out to get you, nor will they eat your babies or barbecue your kittens. 

Giving gays the right to marry is not demanding you marry the same sex. Instead of worrying about what others do with consent as adults, MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!

If you are going to claim same sex is wrong, then don't be a half assed bigot, go all the way, do what Isis does, throw them off rooftops. They also base their bigotry on their holy book, an old book too, like yours.


If not, if you value human rights, then pull your head out of your ass and understand humans back then did not have the same morals as the west does today.

"Otherism" is what religions teach. Now while many in every religion like to use that to foster inclusion, it still remains that religion is tribal. I do not see LGBT as "other" much less a danger to my existence. 

I don't know how much more blunt I can be on this issue. LGBT are not your enemy, nor are they evil, nor are they defective. If you interpret your bible to imply such, even if you falsely think you have "good intent"..... FUCK YOU.

This isn't the year "0" and we are not a theocracy.

(July 15, 2018 at 1:08 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 12:51 pm)Chad32 Wrote: My opposition doesn't need propping up. Both definitions and traditions change by necessity over time.

Some definitions do. Most do not. Is a Christian who believed that marriage was ordained by God and restated by Jesus wrong to oppose the changing of the definition? Yes or no: are the wrong?

Yes, because we don't live in a theocracy. You can disagree, but not oppose it just because your religious book says so. If you want to live in a theocracy, you can, but you'd better also believe in the same interpretation of the book as the ruling class, or you're still fucked.

Quote:Some definitions do. 

Like marriage 

Quote:Most do not.

Irrelevant 

Quote: Is a Christian who believed that marriage was ordained by God and restated by Jesus wrong to oppose the changing of the definition?

No one cares what your regressive book of ideological bigotry thinks marriage is .Your not it's absolute definer nor should anyone care if you think you are . 

Quote: Yes or no: are the wrong?

Not important

(July 15, 2018 at 7:48 am)SteveII Wrote: All valid points and are part of a civil discussion. Here's the question, who has the right to redefine an institution that predates history itself? 5 people? 

Christians never consulted anyone when they turned marriage into a business proposition.  I don't see why Gays and Lesbians should have to consult anyone when they want to add male/male and female/female relationships to it.