filtherton

You must've confused your co-opting of the concept of marriage to fit your convenient misconceptions about the history of the word marriage with the perspective of someone who is actually familiar with the history of marriage as it has been constantly redefined throughout its history.

I wasn't denouncing tradition, i was just trying to tell you that you seem to have no idea of what marriage has been traditionally. The point of what i posted is essentially this: in the bible, historically, the definition or marriage has constantly changed to reflect the society that employs it. There are many different ways of defining marriage and all could be accurately described as traditional. You can't claim to argue for the conservation of the "traditional" method of marriage because you aren't arguing for the conservation of the traditional definition of marriage. You're arguing for the conservation of a definition of marriage that you're comfortable with.

His "digs against conservative religion" are accurate. Sorry you think that the truth amounts to insult. The fact is that many churches who denounce homosexuality are very selective in their interpretation of that part of the bible. They emphasize a condemnation of homosexuality whilst downplaying cloth blends when both are mentioned with the exact same amount of urgency. That's the other point of my post. God is a convenient shield with which to hide one's homophobia, unfortunately one can't do it without cognitive dissonance unless one is consistent in one's interpretation of certain parts.

Another point is that this is a sound endorsement of gay marriage by a religious authority. Gay marriage should be protected by the first amendment. Ironically, many of the same people who become shrill at the thought of legalized gay marriage also become shrill at the idea of the ten commandments being removed from a courthouse. Do you know how sadly unamerican it is for a holy man to argue for only the rights of his own religious perspective? How shorsighted it is?

I'm sure you just scream for facts from whomever it is that told that the bible denounces homosexuality. I can tell from our conversation that factual information is really high on your list of "Things that effect my perspective".
I provided you with the dictionary definition you asked for, but since it didn't say what you wanted it to you ignored it.

Here's some facts from the artical that you may have missed:

I wish i had citations, but suffice to say, calling a pastor a liar is a mortal sin

I realize that interpretations aren't facts, but since you seem to use them as such you should have no problem if he does.

While we're on the subject of facts, i have yet to see you provide anything except a misunderstanding of tradition and an unsupported assertion that straight parents raise better children than gay parents.

How's that? I thought we were talking tradition here. Tradition has roots in the past, you can't pretend it is irrelevant without any kind of justification.