(July 25, 2018 at 3:24 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 3:12 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Why do you think it is a bad argument then. I’ll address your concerns!

First, bachelors aren't barred from entering into the legal institution of marriage so they already have equal treatment under the law. Second, by definition, bachelors are unmarried men making a married bachelor a logical impossibility. If that definition changes... You do know there are gay bachelors, right? You know, the guys you want to keep from voluntarily renouncing that status because you don't want a definition, one of many, changed?!?

Funny how you've used a logical impossibility and a legal impossibility (toasters for fuck's sake) to defend your bigotry against people who are fundamentally just like you except for one little thing.

---

(July 25, 2018 at 3:11 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: After all it's ancient and stuff .

Yeah, but is it sanctioned by gawd but not at all religious?

To your comment to Road kill he will likely whine the tired chestnut that gays can marry women which is a stupid argument .And is firmly refuted by your second point . And yeah his toaster nonsense is just that nonsense .And indeed lots of gay bachelors their would be more if Road kill had his way .

(July 25, 2018 at 3:29 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 1:34 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: If one wants to incline in that direction, then marriage likely has been nothing more than an exclusivistic bonding between one sexual being and another throughout the course of history.  In that case, there likely have been same-sex marriages throughout the course of history, they just haven't been recognized as such by legal or religious authorities.  Which raises the question of specifically what you're referring to by 'marriage'.  As already observed, you seem to conflate talking about the definition of the word with talking about the institution, depending on what's most convenient at the time.  Now you have raised the question of whether you're talking about a formal and officially recognized institution, or an informal one, not involving either religion or government.  Given that humans are animals and as a behavior, are inclined to engage in pair bonding, it's reasonable to conclude that same-sex unions, informally, have a longer history than you're acknowledging.  As noted in prior discussion, homosexual subcultures have existed for a long time.  Are you suggesting that people in such sub-cultures didn't engage in such pair bonding simply because they were homosexual?  If so, I'd like to see your argument for that.  Otherwise, you're likely simply wrong that heterosexual unions have set any kind of standard, historically.  This is especially true when one acknowledges the fact that sanction of homosexual behavior is long standing, and any heterosexual bias in the representation of same-sex unions among officiators of such, whether formal authorities or religion, is likely an artifact of prejudice rather than a reflection of the true state of human behavior.  In short, your marriage argument appears to be foundering on the anvil of some very foundational questions.

What am I referring to by the word marriage? Starting in 2000 (for nice round numbers) and going back 1000 years at at time you asked 100 people from every civilization on the planet what the definition was. The answer you get is the one I am talking about. The one that has been at the center of every civilization that we know of. When you show me that the answer is anything other than between a man and a women, then I will take note of your equivocating charge.

Fine. Then you are arguing that an institution enforced by prejudice should be maintained because prejudice is good, n' stuff. Overruled!

What happened to the 10,000 years argument? You know Steve, if you didn't jettison portions of the argument simply because they've become inconvenient and blithely sail on to the next safe harbor, people would be more likely to believe you when you say you're not a bigoted fuckhead.

Wikipedia says the following about the appeal to tradition, "Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." ... An appeal to tradition is only a fallacious argument in itself if the argument is not developed further, for example by pointing out that the widespread acceptance of the practice means that there would be significant implications/disruption/cost involved in abandoning the tradition." It seems that at every turn, even if the discussion turned to a more substantial discussion of changing the institution as such and whether such is desirable, you've managed to turn it back toward a rather hollow 'mere' appeal to tradition. If people don't buy your argument and think you're likely a prejudiced cunt and a wanker, I think you have only yourself to blame. As presented by you, the argument from tradition is simply a non-starter.

(July 25, 2018 at 2:23 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 6:55 am)SteveII Wrote: You have a definition problem. Bigotry means intolerant of another opinion or belief. You can't come close to connecting the opinion that the definition should not change with intolerance. The amusing thing is that you have been told they are connected so loud and so long that you think they are. They aren't and you can't figure out why not.

You're intolerant of same-sex couples being able to get married. 

No, in my opinion, the definition should not be changed. By my definition, the CAN'T get married. 

Quote:You're intolerant of homosexual activities, if not homosexual people (although, I've never bought the "hate the sin, not the sinner" claptrap).  And, intolerance isn't just limited to opinions or beliefs, but people. 

Nope. God is intolerant. Someone's sin is between them and God. Every single person every day sins--I don't care. If I don't care, I cannot be intolerant. 

Quote:I know you love that dictionary.com definition (it pops up as my first search result, too), but Merriam-Webster has one that's more complete:

Quote:Obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices

Your performance in this thread has been exactly that, demonstrated by your insistence that the definition/institution of marriage should not change, while supplying only appeals to authority and tradition as justification.  I mean, you haven't even acknowledged the fact that marriage in the United States is ultimately just a secular arrangement between couples and the government.  

It's, frankly, an embarrassing display.

It is my opinion that the definition should not change. I NEVER INSISTED that it not change. IT WAS CHANGED!!! Read more carefully!

No, marriage in the US is not ultimately a secular arrangement between couples and the government. That's ridiculous for several reasons--the main one being that most jurisdictions did not require marriage licenses until the late 19th century. Were those millions of married couple mistaken? Secondly, a marriage license is the government only intrusion into the institution of marriage. How does a marriage license do any more than keep a record and make sure you are not marrying a minor?

(July 25, 2018 at 3:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 2:23 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: You're intolerant of same-sex couples being able to get married. 

No, in my opinion, the definition should not be changed. By my definition, the CAN'T get married. 

Quote:You're intolerant of homosexual activities, if not homosexual people (although, I've never bought the "hate the sin, not the sinner" claptrap).  And, intolerance isn't just limited to opinions or beliefs, but people. 

Nope. God is intolerant. Someone's sin is between them and God. Every single person every day sins--I don't care. If I don't care, I cannot be intolerant. 

Quote:I know you love that dictionary.com definition (it pops up as my first search result, too), but Merriam-Webster has one that's more complete:


Your performance in this thread has been exactly that, demonstrated by your insistence that the definition/institution of marriage should not change, while supplying only appeals to authority and tradition as justification.  I mean, you haven't even acknowledged the fact that marriage in the United States is ultimately just a secular arrangement between couples and the government.  

It's, frankly, an embarrassing display.

It is my opinion that the definition should not change. I NEVER INSISTED that it not change. IT WAS CHANGED!!! Read more carefully!

No, marriage in the US is not ultimately a secular arrangement between couples and the government. That's ridiculous for several reasons--the main one being that most jurisdictions did not require marriage licenses until the late 19th century. Were those millions of married couple mistaken? Secondly, a marriage license is the government only intrusion into the institution of marriage. How does a marriage license do any more than keep a record and make sure you are not marrying a minor?

Read what I posted from dictionary.com. Read it carefully. Think on it. Maybe, just maybe, you'll see why marriage isn't the sacrosanct thing you describe.

Then again, you're bigot colored glasses will probably get in the way.

(July 25, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 3:29 pm)SteveII Wrote: What am I referring to by the word marriage? Starting in 2000 (for nice round numbers) and going back 1000 years at at time you asked 100 people from every civilization on the planet what the definition was. The answer you get is the one I am talking about. The one that has been at the center of every civilization that we know of. When you show me that the answer is anything other than between a man and a women, then I will take note of your equivocating charge.

Fine.  Then you are arguing that an institution enforced by prejudice should be maintained because prejudice is good, n' stuff.  Overruled!

What happened to the 10,000 years argument?  You know Steve, if you didn't jettison portions of the argument simply because they've become inconvenient and blithely sail on to the next safe harbor, people would be more likely to believe you when you say you're not a bigoted fuckhead.

Note the bold. I'm not dropping the 10,000 year argument--that's gold. 

Quote:Wikipedia says the following about the appeal to tradition, "Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." ... An appeal to tradition is only a fallacious argument in itself if the argument is not developed further, for example by pointing out that the widespread acceptance of the practice means that there would be significant implications/disruption/cost involved in abandoning the tradition."  It seems that at every turn, even if the discussion turned to a more substantial discussion of changing the institution as such and whether such is desirable, you've managed to turn it back toward a rather hollow 'mere' appeal to tradition.  If people don't buy your argument and think you're likely a prejudiced cunt and a wanker, I think you have only yourself to blame.  As presented by you, the argument from tradition is simply a non-starter.

Not making an appeal to tradition. That would apply if I was against any type of gay family structure (I'm not). An appeal to tradition does not apply to a preference to a longstanding definition--because it's not an argument--it's a matter of fact that I prefer does not change.

(July 25, 2018 at 4:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fine.  Then you are arguing that an institution enforced by prejudice should be maintained because prejudice is good, n' stuff.  Overruled!

What happened to the 10,000 years argument?  You know Steve, if you didn't jettison portions of the argument simply because they've become inconvenient and blithely sail on to the next safe harbor, people would be more likely to believe you when you say you're not a bigoted fuckhead.

Note the bold. I'm not dropping the 10,000 year argument--that's gold. 

Fine, then the equivocation charge is reinstated, as well as the charge that you're making shit up that you can't possibly know.

(July 25, 2018 at 4:00 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Wikipedia says the following about the appeal to tradition, "Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is an argument in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." ... An appeal to tradition is only a fallacious argument in itself if the argument is not developed further, for example by pointing out that the widespread acceptance of the practice means that there would be significant implications/disruption/cost involved in abandoning the tradition."  It seems that at every turn, even if the discussion turned to a more substantial discussion of changing the institution as such and whether such is desirable, you've managed to turn it back toward a rather hollow 'mere' appeal to tradition.  If people don't buy your argument and think you're likely a prejudiced cunt and a wanker, I think you have only yourself to blame.  As presented by you, the argument from tradition is simply a non-starter.

Not making an appeal to tradition. That would apply if I was against any type of gay family structure (I'm not). An appeal to tradition does not apply to a preference to a longstanding definition--because it's not an argument--it's a matter of fact that I prefer does not change.

Fine. Then it's just your preference. Nobody gives a shit about your preference unless it rests on a rational foundation. If this is just your preference, then fuck off.

(July 25, 2018 at 4:00 pm)SteveII Wrote: Note the bold. I 'm not dropping should drop the 10,000 year argument--that's gold dead wrong.

Fixed that for you.

(July 25, 2018 at 2:31 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I'm gonna let dictionary.com complete the destruction of RR's and Steve's "arguments" by definition about marriage.

All emphasis is mine:

dictionary.com Wrote:Marriage has never had just one meaning. Adjectives commonly used with the word reveal the institution’s diversity, among them traditional, religious, civil, arranged, gay, plural, group, open, heterosexual, common-law, interracial, same-sex, polygamous, and monogamous. And this diversity has been in evidence, if not since the beginning of time, at least since the beginning of marriage itself, roughly some 4000 years ago.
Multiple wives, for example, proliferate in the Bible. King Solomon famously had 700, although most were apparently instruments of political alliance rather than participants in royal romance. (For that, he had 300 concubines.)
Marriage can be sanctioned legally or religiously, and typically confers upon married people a special legal status with particular rights, benefits, and obligations. Access to this special status has changed over time. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage as recently as 1967, while same-sex marriage, which for some time had been banned in many states or ignored in others, was in 2015 ruled a constitutional right for all Americans.
Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the most common definition of the term in the Western world today—this in spite of the prevalence on the one hand of divorce (enabling people to marry several different partners in sequence), and on the other, of an increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage. And as society becomes more inclusive, it is likely that “equal protection under the law” will be fully applied to same-sex couples.
In crafting definitions for a word that represents an institution that is rapidly evolving, the dictionary may well have to keep adding, changing, and reordering senses, splitting or combining them as the institution changes. Inevitably, those who want to preserve what they cherish as traditional values will resist new definitions, while those who anticipate, welcome, and fight for societal change will be impatient when new definitions do not appear as quickly as they would wish. But we should all remember that while it is not the job of a dictionary to drive social change, it is inevitable that it will reflect such change.

RR, Steve, sorry, but you guys lose. You see, that's the problem with communicating by means of a living language. Definitions change, pronunciations change, spelling changes... Might I suggest you both learn Latin if definitions are such a hot button for you. It's a dead language, so you won't have that to deal with. Of course, you'll be stuck in a modern world with no way to communicate modern ideas, but you both seem to be there already.

LOL. That people have to put qualifiers in front of the word 'marriage' if they don't mean marriage! Do you think anyone in the 20th century uttered the phrase 'heterosexual marriage' to make sure everyone was clear on what they meant?! You are proving my point!

Are you going to stick with the 4000 year number? Are you sure you want to do that?

---

(July 25, 2018 at 4:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fine.  Then it's just your preference.  Nobody gives a shit about your preference unless it rests on a rational foundation.  If this is just your preference, then fuck off.

Look back all the way through. My point has always been that a preference to the old definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. People have spent 40 pages unsuccessfully trying to prove that it does. I would have stopped long ago, but you know how this works, a new batch of people take up the cause and rehash everything again.  They can't figure out why they can't prove what they have been told--all who opposed gay marriage are bigots.

(July 25, 2018 at 4:18 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 2:31 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: I'm gonna let dictionary.com complete the destruction of RR's and Steve's "arguments" by definition about marriage.

All emphasis is mine:
RR, Steve, sorry, but you guys lose. You see, that's the problem with communicating by means of a living language. Definitions change, pronunciations change, spelling changes... Might I suggest you both learn Latin if definitions are such a hot button for you. It's a dead language, so you won't have that to deal with. Of course, you'll be stuck in a modern world with no way to communicate modern ideas, but you both seem to be there already.

LOL. That people have to put qualifiers in front of the word 'marriage' if they don't mean marriage! Do you think anyone in the 20th century uttered the phrase 'heterosexual marriage' to make sure everyone was clear on what they meant?! You are proving my point!

Are you going to stick with the 4000 year number? Are you sure you want to do that?

Like I said. Bigot colored glasses.

You got something other than what you pull out of your ass giving you information that marriage goes back 10,000 years? I'm not married to the 4,000 number, but dictionary.com is far more reputable a source than any you've presented (none) so far.

Of course, the age of an institution says nothing to whether they're getting it right or not, and has never been a part of my argument. The institution now includes same-sex couples whether you think it should or not, and that makes the world a better place.

---

(July 25, 2018 at 4:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: Look back all the way through. My point has always been that a preference to the old definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. People have spent 40 pages unsuccessfully trying to prove that it does. I would have stopped long ago, but you know how this works, a new batch of people take up the cause and rehash everything again.  They can't figure out why they can't prove what they have been told--all who opposed gay marriage are bigots.

Any time you exclude a group of people because they're (insert trait you find undesireable here), it's bigotry you chuckle-fuck.

(July 25, 2018 at 4:18 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 25, 2018 at 4:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Fine.  Then it's just your preference.  Nobody gives a shit about your preference unless it rests on a rational foundation.  If this is just your preference, then fuck off.

Look back all the way through. My point has always been that a preference to the old definition of marriage does not equate to bigotry. People have spent 40 pages unsuccessfully trying to prove that it does. I would have stopped long ago, but you know how this works, a new batch of people take up the cause and rehash everything again.  They can't figure out why they can't prove what they have been told--all who opposed gay marriage are bigots.

I think that's an open question, the resolution to which you've done little to further. It seems your complaint is more that people are being people in this thread rather than that atheists are being atheists. If that's your problem, by all means, keep pissing into the wind if it makes you happy.