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

[Amarok]

I can't help it if yo are too lazy to read all of my posts. I'm an not the one late to the party but it seems that I have to repeat everything I said for the third time.

Of course I care because I think the marriage was ordained by God to be a central part of the human experience and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years. And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans. Marriage is not itself a religious concept. I have been clear that I don't care what your view is--I am correcting the pages and pages of mischaracterizations, demonization, straw men, and red herrings of a Christian's perspective on the issue. It is not hatred of bigotry for the vase majority and I have proved that point over and over.

So more irrelevant  preaching mixed with whining that your correcting us when all you doing really is backing up our point and digging yourself a deeper hole.  And empty claims you have proven something when you have done the opposite. Poor form very poor form .

[Astreja]

In our worldview, you both need God equally.

In my worldview, that "need" = 0.

---

There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions.

That's because one does not need a constitution to redefine words, concepts and institutions.  All one actually needs is the desire to do so.

[Amarok]

Steve lives under the beliefs that if he repeats the same foolish lines over and over they somehow become less foolish

---

There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions.

Pure opinion

[Cecelia]

I say we let the Christian bigots continue being bigots. By doing so they'll only contribute to the downfall of their own religion.

In the words of Dr. Temperance Brennan: "Organized belief systems which fail to adapt to changing ways are demoted from religions to acknowledged metaphoric myth systems"

[robvalue]

This "sanctity of definitions" defense makes me feel a bit ill. It's a thinly veiled appeal to tradition. What exactly is the problem with definitions changing? Will it confuse people? I don't think so, in this case. It's rather a newsworthy event. Will it upset people who have emotional attachments to definitions? That's really their problem, I think. Aiming for equal rights is a bit more important than protecting these strange people from their psychological problems.

At least fundamentalist types are honest enough to admit that they think less of homosexuals, and that allowing them the same rights devalues "regular" marriage. It's disgusting, but at least it's not duplicitous.

---

PS: having this definition change doesn't suddenly mean all other definitions change as well, or whatever other nonsense is implied. Religiously defined marriage can stay the same anyhow. The rest of us can move on.

[Simon Moon]

...and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years.

This is patently false.

Many parts of China have had what is known as "walking marriages", where women have several "husbands" that visit her.

Many tribes in South America have communal marriages, where the entire tribe forms a marriage, and procreates as a group, and shares in raising children.

28 societies in the Himalayas have polyandrous marriages, as do others in India.

Sorry to inform you, but monogamy did not become the norm in the Western world until between the 6th and 9th centuries, CE.

And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans.

No, it has not. At least, not in the way you falsely believe.

[Crossless2.0]

...and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years.

This is patently false.

Many parts of China have had what is known as "walking marriages", where women have several "husbands" that visit her.

Many tribes in South America have communal marriages, where the entire tribe forms a marriage, and procreates as a group, and shares in raising children.

28 societies in the Himalayas have polyandrous marriages, as do others in India.

Sorry to inform you, but monogamy did not become the norm in the Western world until between the 6th and 9th centuries, CE.

And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans.

No, it has not. At least, not in the way you falsely believe.

Go easy, Simon. You know that it takes centuries for news of God's institution of marriage as characterized in the Bible to make the rounds. Divine revelation takes time. A lot of it.

[Amarok]

...and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years.

No it has not 

And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans.

Nope Christian revisionism

---

Sorry to inform you, but monogamy did not become the norm in the Western world until between the 6th and 9th centuries, CE. 

Yup many pagan societies did not give a duck

[SteveII]

...and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years.

This is patently false.

Many parts of China have had what is known as "walking marriages", where women have several "husbands" that visit her.

Many tribes in South America have communal marriages, where the entire tribe forms a marriage, and procreates as a group, and shares in raising children.

28 societies in the Himalayas have polyandrous marriages, as do others in India.

Sorry to inform you, but monogamy did not become the norm in the Western world until between the 6th and 9th centuries, CE.

And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans.

No, it has not. At least, not in the way you falsely believe.

Three points: 1) You do realize you had to use modifiers to distinguish your remote exceptions to the traditional definition of marriage, right? 2) these variations are between men and women. 3) What do you think the % of these outliers are to the billions and billions of traditional marriage? How many decimal points do you think you need?

You have your head in the sand if you don't think marriage is the single most important institution in the history of civilization.

[Ravenshire]

If marriage is not a christer concept, then what the fuck are you on about?!? Words get redefined all the fucking tim, you ass-hat. Yet you've got your panties in a wad over this one in particular. Care to better explain why, if it's not because of your christer sesibilities? Is it just bigotry against gays motivating you? Serioisly, without you defending it as a sacred part of your foolish beliefs, I can't imagine any other reason for you to be so adamantly against gay marriage.

I can't help it if yo are too lazy to read all of my posts. I'm an not the one late to the party but it seems that I have to repeat everything I said for the third time.

Of course I care because I think the marriage was ordained by God to be a central part of the human experience and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years. And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans. Marriage is not itself a religious concept. I have been clear that I don't care what your view is--I am correcting the pages and pages of mischaracterizations, demonization, straw men, and red herrings of a Christian's perspective on the issue. It is not hatred of bigotry for the vase majority and I have proved that point over and over.

Now you're just refuting your own argument. First it's not a christer thing then it's ordained by gawd...

Serioisly Steve. Grow the fuck up and join the modern world. People change, societies change, religions change. Yes, even yours. Change may sometimes be painful, especially to those who resist it. Embrace the change as a betterment of human society. That's what it is, after all. Or, keep being a knuckle-dragger. No skin off my ass either way because you've already lost this fight.