If You Believe Homosexual Acts Are Immoral, Why Are You Labeled a "homophobe"?

Yes. But of course, you havent a clue as to what is being justified.

 

So you're saying that the language has remained unchanged for a thousand years, and any definition from 1014 is every bit as valid as a definition from 2014?

 

Nope. Like I said, you wouldnt have a clue.

 

Which would be why I'm asking the question, rather than telling you what you believe. Clarity could help. Your words state that "A... definition less tha (sic) 1000 years, isn't 'outdated' or 'old'." That statement reads to me, and I'm sure to anyone else, that definitions stand for the seemingly arbitrary number of 1000 years. The English language, since 1014 has changed so much that your head would spin. As a fan of linguistics, your statement as quoted is wrong.

 

Clarity would require going back and reading the portion of my post you quoted, that you deleted, and the two quoted posts within that post. But of course, you deleted that portion so you could pretend you had a relevant point here.

 

I took out the part that was not relevant to the discussion at hand, but if you can't explain the things that you post, I understand. Most of us can't explain, or understand, it either.

 

????? You mean it wasnt relevant to the discusion you wanted to have. Very relevant to the actual discussion.

 

Even with your quotes, I have no idea what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you're trying to say.

 

I am not digging through the thread. If it takes me reading all of your posts in this thread, forget it.

The fact that I have to play this game with you every single time you post some nonsense to get you to back it up means you are an extremely poor debator. Franklyyou aren't worth the time.

All this time you post how somebody is lying now you add an ad hominem. It would have been easier just to post your source or link to the post where you posted proof. I am absolutely not looking through the thread. So until you post proof, you are lying.

- - - Updated - - -

he basically voided his own argument.

 

Basically Dixon's argument is that homosexuals should not be allowed to be married to each other because treating them like heterosexual couples would be special treatment.

Everything else is his peculiar rationalization for that argument, and just goes round and round in circles.

 

I left this forum a while back simply because of the circular logic that certain posters use. Like saying that a computer can give consent... or that as long as a definition is less than 1000 years old is not outdated.

 

Being treated the equally equals being treated special? Lord have mercy the mental gymnastics and lies people will tell themselves in order to rationalize this nonsense.

Well he did shoot his argument in the foot.

 

Not that you would have any hope of being able to comprehend, but since the topic of discussion is the meaning of marriage over the last thousand years, definitions from any time during those thousand years isn't outdated.

 

it's all ridiculous rationale in order to prop up backward beliefs.

 

Don't mistake your inability to comprehend, with someone else's circular logic

 

That includes a marriage of people of the same sex. Thanks for ruining your argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't mistake your circular logic for straight forward logic.

 

Only backwards beliefs here are your beliefs that marriages between two people of the same sex have been around for a thousand years. Or ANY time during our nations history before 2004

 

It's all marriage. You are the one thinking the groin of the people involved is some fundamental aspect, yet continuously fail to prove it.

 

Do you really think "A marriage" in some church, centuries ago does anything for your argument? You can go to the local church of Christ here in conservative central Texas and marry anyone you like, man or woman. I saw a guy marry his horse once. These marriages have no effect in the law. Emperors Nero and Elagabalus both married men because as Emperors they could marry anyone they like. But even in ancient Rome where homosexual behavior was celebrated,

 

And prior to 2004 in the US, marriages between two people of the same sex were nonexistent. Because this whole gay marriage thing is a new invention.

 

Ah, so then, your contestation is that because one definition of marriage is OLDER than the other, then it should be the one we use.

So abandon should mean "To subjugate or subdue" rather than what it means now, "to give up completely".

Or perhaps the hash smokers I know should be called "assassins" from the old Arabic phrase for them, rather than "one who kills for a living".

Or maybe I should start using "awful" as a description of wonder, rather than meaning something is horrible.

Things change, dixon, get with the program

 

No, you are the one making appeals to tradition and supporting your argument by what was done a thousand years ago.

There are plenty. http://www.gaychurch.org/list-churches-by-state/?loc=TX

Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

yeah, meaning the state ifs discriminating against homosexuals for no real reason. At least no real reason you can articulate.

So?

 

The Supreme Court did that for me.

Marriage between two people of the same sex was non existant and therefore NOT fundamental. Because only husbands and wives become fathers and mothers to their own children.

 

"Gay marriage" is a figment of your imagination. And this it only exists in your mind. A gay couple would simply marry each other. They wouldn't "gay marry" just like gay people don't "gay drive" a car, or "gay stand" in line at the grocery store.

I am arguing that marriage isn't exclusive to opposite sex couples. And you have completely failed to make an argument otherwise

 

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! The thousand year time frame AND the only appeal to tradition here is by YOU.

Good god man/woman, dig DEEP for some remaining shred of integrity.