[Karunamon]

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot.

Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before.

>Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better.

Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.

[eeky]

>"tolerance means accepting intolerance"

That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

>Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment.

>I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points

I'm responding very frequently.

>"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term

Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.

[dragonwriter]

> But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception.

Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners.

Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.

[Karunamon]

>I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.

That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views..

>But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman.

Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you.

I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.