(July 24, 2018 at 1:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, how many words change their definitions over time? Pretty much every single one. And they change because the society needs them to change.

That so obviously false. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. We have millions of concepts that have not changed one iota since they were defined. 

Quote:I've yet to see a reason why *not* to change the definition if that makes things better (which it would).

The only reason i can see is that they think homosexuality is automatically immoral. And yes, that is bigotry.

No. 'Better' is a word to describe relative value against some sort of scale. There is no 'better' in changing the definition of marriage. It is just simply changing it. 


Nope again. Thinking something is immoral does not ever equal bigotry. A charge of bigotry is positive claim. It is not the null hypothesis or the default position when someone thinks something is immoral. I think many things are immoral. Does that make me bigoted toward prostitutes, drug dealers, people who steal, people cheating on their spouse, people stealing cable? No--that's nonsense. You can't ever make an argument that a position on issue x automatically makes you a bigot. Definitions of these words prevent you from doing that. Of course you could always redefine them--seems to be your thing.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun

1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
   
   
   

---

(July 24, 2018 at 12:45 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Since you keep ignoring the question, I'll ask again. How has the change to the definition of the word marriage impacted you, Steve? There must be some reason you're in such a twist over it.

Why does it have to impact me in order for me to have an opinion? 

The reason I participated in the idiotically-named thread is that a bunch of atheists prefer to mischaracterize the Christian position on homosexuality, they apply shitty reasoning to people's motives, and they continue to propagate polarizing rhetoric that is founded on nonsense.

(July 24, 2018 at 2:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 24, 2018 at 1:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, how many words change their definitions over time? Pretty much every single one. And they change because the society needs them to change.

That so obviously false. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. We have millions of concepts that have not changed one iota since they were defined. 

How many of those millions of concepts happen to be institutional concepts? And among those, how many will I find that have only one definition in a dictionary?

Let the flailing continue

---

(July 24, 2018 at 2:56 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(July 24, 2018 at 2:43 pm)SteveII Wrote: That so obviously false. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. We have millions of concepts that have not changed one iota since they were defined. 

How many of those millions of concepts happen to be institutional concepts? And among those, how many will I find that have only one definition in a dictionary?

Or the fact that some definitions do change why should marriage not be one of them ?

(July 24, 2018 at 6:13 am)SteveII Wrote: That is a straw man because changing the definition of marriage was not the only way to ensure the "rights and privileges" I currently enjoy. There is no right to the definition of a word.

If there's no right to the definition of a word, then why are you so uptight about the definition changing?

And, while changing the definition of marriage may not have been the only way to ensure rights and privileges, I believe it was the most egalitarian given the way marriage actually works in this country (which you continually and conveniently ignore). You get to keep your traditional marriage, and same-sex couplings are elevated to the same stature. Win-win.

I trust I don't need to go into a deep dive of how "separate but equal isn't equal" works re: civil unions.

If it's a bigoted proscription..then, yes...ofc they are.  Regardless of whether a person is a bigot because they were told to be...or a bigot for reasons unique to themselves....they are a bigot.  

It's the contention of many god botherers..however, that god would not/could not/ did not decree that a person must be a bigot in order to be faithful....I consider it an optional upgrade.

(July 24, 2018 at 2:43 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 24, 2018 at 1:40 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, how many words change their definitions over time? Pretty much every single one. And they change because the society needs them to change.

That so obviously false. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. We have millions of concepts that have not changed one iota since they were defined. 

Quote:I've yet to see a reason why *not* to change the definition if that makes things better (which it would).

The only reason i can see is that they think homosexuality is automatically immoral. And yes, that is bigotry.

No. 'Better' is a word to describe relative value against some sort of scale. There is no 'better' in changing the definition of marriage. It is just simply changing it. 


Nope again. Thinking something is immoral does not ever equal bigotry. A charge of bigotry is positive claim. It is not the null hypothesis or the default position when someone thinks something is immoral. I think many things are immoral. Does that make me bigoted toward prostitutes, drug dealers, people who steal, people cheating on their spouse, people stealing cable? No--that's nonsense. You can't ever make an argument that a position on issue x automatically makes you a bigot. Definitions of these words prevent you from doing that. Of course you could always redefine them--seems to be your thing.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun

1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
   
   
   

---

(July 24, 2018 at 12:45 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Since you keep ignoring the question, I'll ask again. How has the change to the definition of the word marriage impacted you, Steve? There must be some reason you're in such a twist over it.

Why does it have to impact me in order for me to have an opinion? 

The reason I participated in the idiotically-named thread is that a bunch of atheists prefer to mischaracterize the Christian position on homosexuality, they apply shitty reasoning to people's motives, and they continue to propagate polarizing rhetoric that is founded on nonsense.

You're not expressing an opinion. You're squealing like a butt-hurt school girl who got stood up by her prom date.

You're the one freaking out about a word definition change, so it makes me wonder why. Do you freak out at people when they claim they're "literally dying?" Just curious, because they added a definition to account for dumb-asses who do that.

So, has the change impacted you? You keep dodging the question like it would fucking kill you to answer it.

BTW - You don't get a right to a definition either, as you so adroitly pointed out in an earlier post.

(July 24, 2018 at 3:01 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 24, 2018 at 6:13 am)SteveII Wrote: That is a straw man because changing the definition of marriage was not the only way to ensure the "rights and privileges" I currently enjoy. There is no right to the definition of a word.

If there's no right to the definition of a word, then why are you so uptight about the definition changing?

And, while changing the definition of marriage may not have been the only way to ensure rights and privileges, I believe it was the most egalitarian given the way marriage actually works in this country (which you continually and conveniently ignore).  You get to keep your traditional marriage, and same-sex couplings are elevated to the same stature.  Win-win.

I trust I don't need to go into a deep dive of how "separate but equal isn't equal" works re: civil unions.

I will clarify: There is no right to take for yourself a definition of a word that does not apply to you. You may wish/want it to, but there is no right. You might even have good compelling arguments why it should be changed. The problem is that a great number of people act like it is a right and then accuses anyone who does not agree of bigotry. Sorry, does not work that way. 

If civil unions don't have equal status under the law, then someone designed the law poorly. If someone thinks that gay marriage has somehow magically been made the same as the institution the word has represented for the last 10,000 years, they aren't thinking straight (hey, an unintended pun). They are still fundamentally different.

If you think somehow there's something 'magical' about being married because you have a magic ceremony with a magic man in the sky, then you're fucking delusional.

Further thought: since the complaint is about the secular, legal version of marriage, that must mean this is the version viewed as proper marriage, even by such Christians.

(July 24, 2018 at 3:47 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 24, 2018 at 2:43 pm)SteveII Wrote: That so obviously false. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. We have millions of concepts that have not changed one iota since they were defined. 


No. 'Better' is a word to describe relative value against some sort of scale. There is no 'better' in changing the definition of marriage. It is just simply changing it. 


Nope again. Thinking something is immoral does not ever equal bigotry. A charge of bigotry is positive claim. It is not the null hypothesis or the default position when someone thinks something is immoral. I think many things are immoral. Does that make me bigoted toward prostitutes, drug dealers, people who steal, people cheating on their spouse, people stealing cable? No--that's nonsense. You can't ever make an argument that a position on issue x automatically makes you a bigot. Definitions of these words prevent you from doing that. Of course you could always redefine them--seems to be your thing.

big·ot·ry
ˈbiɡətrē/
noun

1. intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
   
   
   

---

Why does it have to impact me in order for me to have an opinion? 

The reason I participated in the idiotically-named thread is that a bunch of atheists prefer to mischaracterize the Christian position on homosexuality, they apply shitty reasoning to people's motives, and they continue to propagate polarizing rhetoric that is founded on nonsense.

You're not expressing an opinion.

Then you have comprehension problems. 

Quote:You're the one freaking out about a word definition change, so it makes me wonder why. Do you freak out at people when they claim they're "literally dying?" Just curious, because they added a definition to account for dumb-asses who do that.

So, has the change impacted you? You keep dodging the question like it would fucking kill you to answer it.

To my knowledge I am not impacted (never even implied such). I don't have to be to correct misguided and unthinking atheists. I'm practicing, there are lots of opportunities.