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

OMG- that was awesome!

 

nope not any more, try updating your definitions to the modern times;

Blacks Law dictionary Edition 10





and in case you want to split hairs with another attempt to change the subject;

Conjugal Rights

 

Dixon is wholly incorrect with the definition of marriage he posted, blacks Law Dictionary Edition 10 (the latest edition) makes no mention of the gender of the people wanting to marry. Neither does it's entry for conjugal rights.

He has tried this before quoting from outdated sources in order to bolster his failed argument.

 

yeah he tends to bend the truth. As if I am not going to verify it.

He has to lie to himself. He seems to get upset when you don't buy his crap.

Yeah, anything to protect his agenda.

 

It's ok, all you can do is try and forgive yourself for having an opinion that harms society.

 

You people really should learn how to use google, to avoid making fools of yourself. The definition is from the current Merriam Websters on-line version.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony

And since the topic of discussion is the "fundamental attributes" of a thousands of years old institution of marriage and the recent changing of those fundamental attributes, these recent changes to other dictionary definitions demonstrate my point.

 

You people really should learn how to use google, to avoid making fools of yourself. The definition is from the current Merriam Websters on-line version.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony

And since the topic of discussion is the "fundamental attributes" of a thousands of years old institution of marriage and the recent changing of those fundamental attributes, these recent changes to other dictionary definitions demonstrate my point.

 

Thats why it is done on the basis of a potential of procreation. Governmental concern doesnt arise because people are having sex. The interest arises because when heterosexual couples have sex, procreation is frequently the result.

 

You could make a strong argument that a steady population growth (slightly above replacement level) is in the national interests and given that homosexuals (if they remain true to their own sexual identity) do not reproduce they are acting contrary to the national interests.

 

Except that many gay couples have kids. There goes the strength of that argument.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/gay-parents-salt-lake-city-_n_3314969.html

 

Most of them from previous heterosexual relationships.

 

Bad grammar such as "try and" instead of "try to" does more damage to the ability to think than you are allowed to think about.

 

Why call that argument "strong" when it distracts from the real harm, which is caused by people with a harmful personality disorder being encouraged to go deeper in their sickness and being turned loose on society? Just like bestiality, the act itself may not harm others, but it indicates a disorder that will lead to other harms.

Besides, objectively considered, infertile sex should have benefited society by keeping the population down, even in prehistoric times. The fact that it wasn't chosen as a way to do that proves how secretly destructive it was. Instead, mankind chose infanticide, genocide, and human sacrifice--the healthy fear of homosexuality was that convincing. The reason was that perversion leads to mass suicide.

 

Being a grammar nazi does more damage to your character than you dare think about.

 

It's ok, all you can do is try and forgive yourself for having an opinion that harms society.

 

Tell you what you find any instance of a court using Merriam Websters for it's legal definitions and you just might have something, until then you have been owned.

The fact you have to resort to searching around to find a definition that fits your agenda, and not even a legal definition at that, makes the only fool here, you.

Appeal to tradition noted

 

Well as you have no actually relevant proof that homosexuality is a 'sickness' or a 'disorder' then your claim is pretty anal to say the least.

Proof for these absurd assertions please.

 

The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined....
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/lambda/jones.htm

 

That makes no sense either and it is discriminatory. You give benefits on the basis of actually having children and not on "the potential to have children".

Your formula is a ridiculous waste of resources by giving benefits to people that do not have children and discriminates against couples that do have children but do not fit your formula.

It is the children that suffer in the end.

Your formula fails on the above basis alone never mind the fact that we have not even addressed the question of whether or not it is even desirable for the State to encourage "baby making" in a world that is already overpopulated.

 

You really ought to learn not to lie.

So you are wrong in your assertion. They obviously aren't fundamental if they can be changed.

 

Why didn't you give Meriam Webster's definition of marriage?

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

: a similar relationship between people of the same sex

: a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

I can use the online dictionary too.

 

Federal law over rules state law, the Supreme court struck down DOMA Section 3 on June 26th 2013 and the most widely used LEGAL dictionary is Black's Law Dictionary which in the latest edition makes no mention WHAT SO EVER of the gender of the people wishing to marry.

not a legal dictionary, so irrelevant in legal definitions

not a legal dictionary, so irrelevant in legal definitions.

You are FIVE editions behind the times, and as noted your only recourse is to pursue outdated legal definitions as anything more up to date would render your inept argument moot.

Which will be soon struck down as unconstitutional.

 

Dont edit out of my posts you quote, the links that show you to be the liar.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony

LOLOL!!! I am the one arguing that what they CHANGED

 

What links?

What they changed obviously wasn't fundamental.

Go tell Canada, south Africa, Massachusetts, and everywhere else that these so called "fundamental attributes" are proven not to be fundamental.

Dixiy you are dead wrong. You don't have to believe it but it's true.

 

The one you just edited from the post of mine you quoted.

????? The fact that they can change them doesn't contradict the fact that the changes are fundamental.