I posted two serious arguments you completely ignored. Post 303.
Miller - 1.
Melchior - 0.
That’s not an argument. Give an argument.
Is it wrong that I heard that in Crocodile Dundee’s voice?
Your work to date doesn’t merit my attention.
If you’re going to claim that you haven’t been paying attention to this thread, that would explain your posts better than anything else I can think of.
That’s the way things have been done in the past isn’t an argument. It may be part of a reason for something, but as a complete argument is a fail.
Marriage itself is “something that has been done in the past”.
So you don’t have an argument. Hypocrite.
So is slavery, that sure as hell doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.
I don’t think that in any way answers the questions I posed to you in my lengthy post. I’d like to think that you’re debating in good faith, so I’d really appreciate it if you would do so.
But if you’d prefer something shorter and more punchy, well, suppose that there’s a new dish, which is a pasta dish made from fettuccine pasta tossed with Parmigiano-Reggiano cheese and butter, but which also has eggplant in it.
The restaurant would like to call it “Fettucine Alfredo with eggplant”, and treat it as a variety of Fettucine Alfredo. Should they? Why or why not?
So is “everything else”. Doesn’t mean they’re done the same way for eternity.
So you have no coherent argument. Gotcha.
Why don’t you just say so?
that was not the question. Answer the question as stated.
Unless you’re talking about this thread.
True. I’ve had basically this same ‘argument’ for at least 6 years on here with a few people. It never changes. That’s why I’ve pretty much switched to mocking.
So? Who cares. At one point the only professions were theology, law and medicine. That definition was expanded to include many jobs that require advanced education in the service of others.
The definition expanded to become more inclusive and is now the accepted definition.
Still ignoring post 303, huh?
He has the right to call it whatever he wants. Once the waiter figures out what he means, the waiter has the right to either go get the guy what he asked for, or argue over definitions.
It’s pretty clear that Melchior is not arguing in good faith, considering that he doesn’t even accept the reasons that same-sex-marriage supporters state for their support as their true beliefs… not to mention the fact that he says nothing (not even, apparently, thousands of years of societal acceptance of gay marriage) could ever lead him to accept that gay marriage is a real thing.
So I asked a bunch of questions. You responded by asking me some questions. I responded by asking you a question. But it’s my responsibility to answer your question, even though you haven’t answered either my first OR second sets of questions? That doesn’t seem particularly fair.
Nonetheless, I will answer your question(s):
No, at least not in the context of an SSM discussion.
The “right”? He certainly has the RIGHT to do so. I have the RIGHT to call dogs cats if I want. But if I do so, I will be very disappointed when people fail to understand what I’m talking about. And I will potentially at some point run into legal troubles when I sign a contract to supply a travelling circus with 100 cats and supply them with 100 dogs, which I call cats.
So, I’ve courteously responded to your questions. Could you extend me the same courtesy?