| >"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. |
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.