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

[polymath257]

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.

And this is tradition, not definition. Marriage is a government recognition of a bond between two people who announce that bond to the world.

---

@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.

But it *isn't* a definition older than history. In fact, non-monogamous relationships and relationships between those of the same gender were probably much more accepted before the rise of monotheism. It was *your* tradition that changed the definitions!

---

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?

It isn't a change of the definition. And yes, they are wrong to be bigoted and not allow perfectly healthy, loving relationships between those who don't agree with their BS.