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

[polymath257]

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.

Once again, simply read 'secular marriage' whenever you see the word in a secular context. That way it can be the same for straights and gays.

There is no *fundamental* difference. The *only* point of marriage is to give societal recognition to a bond between individuals for making a family unit. It isn't to raise kids, or else couples who are childless couldn't really be married. It isn't a religious activity because it is done by a secular society. It is an economic and social institution. And as such, it should be open to couples who wish their relationship to be recognized by the society at large. I fail to see how gender is relevant *at all*.

Your definition argument is weak. Yes, we get to change definitions of words to suit how our society is as it changes. Yes, that includes even 'fundamental' institutions. And yes, it is a right to have equal treatment under the law. Tradition is the worst argument for bigotry.

[Ravenshire]

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.

We've pointed out repeatedly that definitions change all the time. We've pointed out that the definition of marriage has changed over time. You're butt-hurt over the definition of marriage changing, but you're not butt-hurt over the definition of literally changing (which has more effect on the language). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that it's something other than a definition that's setting you off. Hmmmnm. I wonder what that could possibly be.

Gays can get married now Steve. Get used to it, get over it, or get bent.

[KevinM1]

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.

Except, for the nth time, marriage in the United States is simply a secular arrangement between a couple and the government.  You keep saying that the term doesn't, and shouldn't, apply to same-sex couples, but your justifications are merely appeals to authority (your religion) and tradition (10,000 years!) coupled with an apparent fear of change.

You can't have your cake and eat it too with this.  You can't say that the institution of marriage is ordained/constructed by god, but then in the same breath say that it's not a religious institution.  Because if it isn't a religious institution, then it has the same qualities of any other worldly institution, namely that it can be modified by people.  Which it has been.  Because, again, religion is immaterial when it comes to marriage in this country.  As it should be.

Furthermore, re: civil unions, even if they were hypothetically written identically to traditional marriage, that doesn't address the social stigma and division.  And, you can bet your ass that the Bible Belt states would write them to be less-than-marriages anyway.  By making same-sex marriage legal, it eliminates both problems... the coupling is equal in the social space, and since it uses existing law, there's no opportunity to codify discrimination.  Plus, as the SCOTUS ruled, there's no legal justification for making a separate system anyway.

[polymath257]

I really don't understand why the issue here *except* as rank bigotry.

My marriage to my wife isn't affected by two men getting married or two women getting married.

If anything, I feel it is enhanced because the institution as a whole is more inclusive and thereby more in line with how it *should* be.

Seriously, if this is a definitional change, bring it on!

[KevinM1]

I really don't understand why the issue here *except* as rank bigotry.

My marriage to my wife isn't affected by two men getting married or two women getting married.

If anything, I feel it is enhanced because the institution as a whole is more inclusive and thereby more in line with how it *should* be.

Seriously, if this is a definitional change, bring it on!

Of course it's bigotry.  It's the most insidious kind - casual bigotry.  The kind that isn't rooted in pure hate, but rather keeping The Other in their place.  Homosexuals are fine... until they act on their urges and try to get married.  That's a step too far.  They should just be chaste and not want to strive for the same kind of social status as everyone else.  

Not so long ago, the same kinds of things were said about African-Americans.  Whether they could integrate.  Whether they should integrate.  Plenty of people had the attitude of "I don't hate Negros, I just don't think we should mingle."  What is that if not bigotry?

[Amarok]

I said it at the start the Definition argument is just a smokescreen.The tradition argument is a load of bull.And the reproduction argument has little point in modern times . Just regression and bigotry . Now watch Roadkill try and tell us were hypocrites because we don't consider a man and a toaster equal to a loving human couple and that marriage should be determined by arbitrary rules like sex but not race or religion for some reason .

[robvalue]

You have religious beliefs? Fine. You live by those beliefs? Fine. You place restrictions on yourself because of those beliefs? Fine. You expect people outside of your religion to be bound by the same restrictions? Fuck off. You don't adhere to the restrictions of other religions, now do you?

There is also the argument from extinction, which is a little more robust than appeals to definitions:

When a gay has children, they are always more gays. So eventually there will be nothing but gays. Then we will go extinct because gays can't have children. The only way to stop this is to keep gays unmarried, since only married gays can have children, except of course they can't, because they are a gay.

[Amarok]

You have religious beliefs? Fine. You live by those beliefs? Fine. You place restrictions on yourself because of those beliefs? Fine. You expect people outside of your religion to be bound by the same restrictions? Fuck off. You don't adhere to the restrictions of other religions, now do you?

There is also the argument from extinction, which is a little more robust than appeals to definitions:

When a gay has children, they are always more gays. So eventually there will be nothing but gays. Then we will go extinct because gays can't have children. The only way to stop this is to keep gays unmarried, since only married gays can have children, except of course they can't, because they are a gay.

That really isn't much of an argument 

It assumes gayness is hereditary or a learned behavior which we know is false .And yes gays can very much have children and many very much want children.Also it does not factor in the fluidity of sexuality and the fact sexual aids exist .

Just pointing out

[robvalue]

Sure yeah, it's just a joke based on the ridiculous ideas some theists have about gays It's my deadpan sense of humour.

[SteveII]

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.

Once again, simply read 'secular marriage' whenever you see the word in a secular context. That way it can be the same for straights and gays.

There is no *fundamental* difference. The *only* point of marriage is to give societal recognition to a bond between individuals for making a family unit. It isn't to raise kids, or else couples who are childless couldn't really be married. It isn't a religious activity because it is done by a secular society. It is an economic and social institution. And as such, it should be open to couples who wish their relationship to be recognized by the society at large. I fail to see how gender is relevant *at all*.

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. 

Your definition argument is weak. Yes, we get to change definitions of words to suit how our society is as it changes. Yes, that includes even 'fundamental' institutions. And yes, it is a right to have equal treatment under the law. Tradition is the worst argument for bigotry.

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. 

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

---

I really don't understand why the issue here *except* as rank bigotry.

My marriage to my wife isn't affected by two men getting married or two women getting married.

If anything, I feel it is enhanced because the institution as a whole is more inclusive and thereby more in line with how it *should* be.

Seriously, if this is a definitional change, bring it on!

Of course it's bigotry.  It's the most insidious kind - casual bigotry.  The kind that isn't rooted in pure hate, but rather keeping The Other in their place.  Homosexuals are fine... until they act on their urges and try to get married.  That's a step too far.  They should just be chaste and not want to strive for the same kind of social status as everyone else.  

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.