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

[Minimalist]

Listen you sanctimonious piece of hypocritical shit.  The last thing I worry about is your fucking silly-assed god's wrath!

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/frankli...ods-wrath/

Franklin Graham warns ‘media spin masters’ to shut up about Trump’s Playmate payoff or face God’s wrath

It's amazing how xhristards can continually make themselves more and more despicable.  You'd think there would be a bottom somewhere.

[Ravenshire]

So to sum up:

1) Marriage has a definition that can't change that has changed

2) Marriage is not a religious matter, but it's to do with what God wants (and the Christian God at that)

3) Marriage is not a legal matter either, but involves a legal contract and has just been discussed in the high court

4) The law has to treat people exactly the same, even people who don't exist, and if it doesn't then... bigots just say what the laws are, I guess?

I don't know what it will take to trigger some self-awareness here.

(my bold)

An act of gawd, apparently.

[RoadRunner79]

Well if you are saying that we can discriminate, and that not all qualify for this legal institution, then it seems that you don't have an argument.   I was assuming that you where.

If all do not qualify for said legal institution then that legal institution is illegally discriminatory and needs to change. It has. If that burns your ass, that's no concern of mine. It's bigotry rearing it's ugly face. You can choose to recognize and deal with it, or you can choose to ignore it and make excuses. So far, all you've done is make excuses.

Hence the argument about a married bachelor. If you don’t let bachelors be married, then you are sescriminating and a bigot.

[Amarok]

Hence the argument about a married bachelor. If you don’t let bachelors be married, then you are sescriminating and a bigot.

Your bachelor argument is refuted crap .Sorry your to dense to recognize it as such and just keep repeating it as if it had not been eviscerated already.

[Ravenshire]

If all do not qualify for said legal institution then that legal institution is illegally discriminatory and needs to change. It has. If that burns your ass, that's no concern of mine. It's bigotry rearing it's ugly face. You can choose to recognize and deal with it, or you can choose to ignore it and make excuses. So far, all you've done is make excuses.

Hence the argument about a married bachelor. If you don’t let bachelors be married, then you are sescriminating and a bigot.

So, you want to change the definition of bachelor? Now, now. We can't have people changing definitions at the drop of every hat.

[Amarok]

Hence the argument about a married bachelor. If you don’t let bachelors be married, then you are sescriminating and a bigot.

So, you want to change the definition of bachelor? Now, now. We can't have people changing definitions at the drop of every hat.

After all it's ancient and stuff .

[RoadRunner79]

Hence the argument about a married bachelor. If you don’t let bachelors be married, then you are sescriminating and a bigot.

Your bachelor argument is refuted crap .Sorry your to dense to recognize it as such and just keep repeating it as if it had not been eviscerated already.

Why do you think it is a bad argument then. I’ll try to address your concerns!

[Amarok]

Why do you think it is a bad argument then. 

Everyone already pointed out why it's bad argument why do you need me to tell you what 20 pages a least has already have shown ?

I’ll address your concerns!

No you won't as this thread has shown you ignore objections and counters and just repeat the argument again as if it wasn't addressed .

[Ravenshire]

Your bachelor argument is refuted crap .Sorry your to dense to recognize it as such and just keep repeating it as if it had not been eviscerated already.

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.

---

So, you want to change the definition of bachelor? Now, now. We can't have people changing definitions at the drop of every hat.

After all it's ancient and stuff .

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

[SteveII]

Wrong again. Marriage is not a legal institution--in any way. It is easy to see that out of the 10,000 years of existence, the government has imposed a few rules for like the last 5 minutes.

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.