"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

Steve just so much

[SteveII]

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.

So, you're not impacted bye the change, yet you are still opposed to the change. And, you wonder why that makes you look like a bigot.

It makes me look like a bigot because that has been drilled into your head that the two things are connected. It actually does not make me a bigot and you have failed over and over to make the logical connection. Definitionally, a difference of opinion does not = intolerance of an opinion.

[Amarok]

Even worse 

[Ravenshire]

So, you're not impacted bye the change, yet you are still opposed to the change. And, you wonder why that makes you look like a bigot.

It makes me look like a bigot because that has been drilled into your head that the two things are connected. It actually does not make me a bigot and you have failed over and over to make the logical connection. Definitionally, a difference of opinion does not = intolerance of an opinion.

Steve, you would deny an entire group of people a right you take for granted, because they're gay. It doesn't matter if you're using a definition as an excuse or not. That is bigotry. You don't think it is because your gawd allegedly claims being gay is bad, but it still is.

I don't know whether to hope one of your kids comes out gay or not. While I'd love to see you trying to justify your bigotry to someone you're supposed to love unconditionally, I think the kid would suffer from your bigotry.

[robvalue]

Let's face it, his kid would hide it from him. Imagine how much more damage that would do.

If GOD wants to tell us how to run our secular governments, I think he could manage to come tell us himself; without relying on millions of spokespersons, all with slightly different scripts. I mean, I'm sure I can find Christians who will tell me God wants gays to be allowed to marry now. And then there's other religions.

[SteveII]

It makes me look like a bigot because that has been drilled into your head that the two things are connected. It actually does not make me a bigot and you have failed over and over to make the logical connection. Definitionally, a difference of opinion does not = intolerance of an opinion.

Steve, you would deny an entire group of people a right you take for granted, because they're gay. It doesn't matter if you're using a definition as an excuse or not. That is bigotry. 

And there is the flaw in your reasoning. I don't deny any group any rights. You need the appropriation of the definition of marriage to be a right. You cannot show that. Your argument has failed. It boils down to a difference of opinion. It does not even matter why my opinions is different. I cannot be called a bigot because I am not intolerant of anyone's views/opinions. 

It seem the goal is not only to change the definition of marriage, it's to change the definition of bigotry. You have bought into nonsense.

[Amarok]

Stop just stop Steve i swear your a masochist

[polymath257]

And it is your opinion that marriage only means these things. My list is significantly longer. In addition, I have beliefs that we were made for a purpose. One of these purposes was to get married and experience this longer list. 

I really don't care what your *religious* beliefs are in this matter. The question is what the *secular* society should do.

There is no more fundamental institution than marriage to the development of all of civilization. You cannot find a comparison, let alone a comparison who's definition has changed. This line of argumentation is not just weak, it is just not valid. 

I disagree. Marriage is one of many institutions in our society that change over time as our society changes. It used to be that 'government' could only mean having one person at the top. It used to be that 'religion' was integrated into the governmental structure. Those have changed and the change is good.

The fact that my opinion is that the definition should not change CANNOT itself be deemed intolerant and so by definition, is not bigoted.

OK, if you're not a bigot, then you're just an asshole.[/quote]

---

So, you're not impacted bye the change, yet you are still opposed to the change. And, you wonder why that makes you look like a bigot.

It makes me look like a bigot because that has been drilled into your head that the two things are connected. It actually does not make me a bigot and you have failed over and over to make the logical connection. Definitionally, a difference of opinion does not = intolerance of an opinion.

If you take your arguments and translate them to a race-based situation, they would be labeled as bigoted immediately.

There is no difference here except in your imagination.

[robvalue]

How can the goal be to change the definition of marriage when it has already changed? The goal, if there is one, is to stop enraged religious people trying to undo the recent progress that has been made in human rights.

[SteveII]

And it is your opinion that marriage only means these things. My list is significantly longer. In addition, I have beliefs that we were made for a purpose. One of these purposes was to get married and experience this longer list. 

I really don't care what your *religious* beliefs are in this matter. The question is what the *secular* society should do.

There is no more fundamental institution than marriage to the development of all of civilization. You cannot find a comparison, let alone a comparison who's definition has changed. This line of argumentation is not just weak, it is just not valid. 

I disagree. Marriage is one of many institutions in our society that change over time as our society changes. It used to be that 'government' could only mean having one person at the top. It used to be that 'religion' was integrated into the governmental structure. Those have changed and the change is good.

Nope. Marriage has never changed. Neither has the concept of government. You are confusing types of governments with the concept itself. Try again to find a fundamental institution where we changed the definition. (Note: if there is only "one person at the top", then it's not a government). Damn definitions!

gov·ern·ment
ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/
noun

1. 1.
   the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
   

The fact that my opinion is that the definition should not change CANNOT itself be deemed intolerant and so by definition, is not bigoted.

OK, if you're not a bigot, then you're just an asshole.

It's coming to me...ad hominem. 

It makes me look like a bigot because that has been drilled into your head that the two things are connected. It actually does not make me a bigot and you have failed over and over to make the logical connection. Definitionally, a difference of opinion does not = intolerance of an opinion.

If you take your arguments and translate them to a race-based situation, they would be labeled as bigoted immediately.

There is no difference here except in your imagination.

They don't translate...so...there's that. Go ahead, try.