Though I am no longer Catholic (I am an atheist) I found some interesting information here:
Your definition hasn’t changed. Everyone else’s has. Deal with it. “Gay” doesn’t mean “happy” anymore either. “Phone” means something besides a heavy bakelite wall attachment with a rotary dial.
Anything else we can clear up for you, Mr. Van Winkle?
What authority can you cite that says this is a minority position, and if so, so what? It’s argumentum ad populum!
You really need to learn more about linguistics and lexicography. Just because some advocacy group makes claims and redefines terms to suit their purposes does not make them right. Remember Newspeak? This is nothing but propaganda!
As pointed out to you above, this is not a fallacy when it comes to language. This is how language works.
And as a an atheist Jew, I happily counter your religious position with this one:
http://urj.org//about/union/governance/reso//?syspage=article&item_id=2000
Full acceptance; endorsement of SSM.
You keep ignoring the fact that many states had majority votes endorsing SSM and public opinion polls have demonstrated a majority support. You keep ignoring this fact because it doesn’t jive with your preconceived ideas of rogue judges, radical minorities and too down social engineering.
Lots of words that boil down to…that’s the way it’s been done in the past.
I’m well aware of the history of marriage, a lot more than at least 90% of Americans. Unless you’re ready to say that marriages should still be arranged by parents and be about property (not to mention wives being property of their husbands) than you really have nothing to stand on. If the only part that you think should still be held is that it has to have opposite sex partners, they you’re a hypocrite.
Opinion polls show more Americans support gay marriage than oppose it. I linked to one above from 2012. There are plenty more.
And if you read the Wikipedia page on argumentum ad populum that I provided then you’ll note the exception for language usage further down the page. Unless, of course, you want to argue for the prescriptivist position. Be aware, however, that the sort of strong prescriptivism you’re advocating has pernicious implications. (That’s why it’s almost universally rejected by linguists.) For example, if you’re a strong prescriptivist there are LOTS of worse misuses of language that you should be railing against. Curious that you seem to only be a strong prescriptivist when it can be used as a club against gay people … .
Melchior, I should have stopped reading this pages ago when it became apparent you weren’t interested in a good-faith debate (like somewhere between your first and second post). But I have to admit I’m kind of enjoying it. Why? Because despite all your insistence that SSM simply can’t be happening, it is. You’ve already lost. It is the law of the land in many states, it is supported by a majority in other states and will soon be legal in those, and eventually even the reddest of the red states will allow it. You have lost.
The arguments regarding why its prohibition needs to end have been made elsewhere and in this thread itself. You can continue to ignore all the posts with actual arguments and focus only on those with snark if you want. You can continue to throw out incorrect statements about the level of support it has. You can parse the meaning of words and attempt to assign your own definitions to words as if you own them. You can lament the passing of a time that you understood and the traditions that are now different from when you grew up. And in the end, you have still lost. The argument was decided years ago, and all that’s left is dragging along the stragglers or waiting for them to die out.
‘Gay marriage’ is like ‘unleaded gasoline’. Back when all gas had lead, we didn’t need a term for it. Now we do.
Great example. We even have “leaded gasoline”, which previously was just called “gasoline”.
Just started on the thread again, but being upset that not everyone is like you (general you) is the very definition of narrow minded. It doesn’t apply only to SSM.
Says the person who seems to have spent a good part of today posting in this thread. 
This is not an argument.
It does not need to be prohibited because it’s not marriage and cannot be considered to be marriage. In the past this was not explicit. It was understood.
It’s not an argumentum ad populum at all. It’s a bait and switch. Melchior insists over and over again that only a tiny minority of people support marriage equality. When other people point out that this incorrect and post proof, he says it’s an argumentum ad populum. It is a cited factual rebuttal to an incorrect claim.
That’s what *all *customs and institutions are based upon, nicht wahr?
Hey, if you didn’t club her over the head and drag her back to your cave, it isn’t really a marriage. 
The philosophy of Reconstruction Judaism (branch of Conservative Judaism) is “the past has a vote, not a veto”. Not everyone has such a rigid adherence to past customs as you do. You don’t get to choose for me what underpins my society.
sure thing. But they can and do change over time. ‘That’s the way we’ve done it before’ can be a useful guide, but is not the absolute final reason for doing something now.
The point was the arguments in the article, not the fact the article existed.
Your point. Not mine.