Hacker News Reader

By using euphemisms like "stand for traditional marriage" you automatically lose the argument. You do not have to defend straight marriage. No one is against it. There's nothing to stand for. In fact you are against the other things. Your position is one of sanction and oppression, not support.

View on HN

It's changing the definition of the word, so yes there is something to stand for. If you don't believe marriage needs defending, look at the rates of marriage. Now the meaning of marriage has been diluted so much, no one wants to get married anymore - there's no point except to possibly get benefits from the state.

I could have just as easily said people who use the term "homophobic" automatically lose the argument, as there's no fear involved. This is a battle of semantics - and if we want a quality debate then we need to keep definitions consistent.

I couldn't care less about a debate with "people" like you. I want you to stop denying us our civil liberties.

Yet you make very many posts to this thread, instead of just ignoring the trolls.

From where do you derive your definition of traditional marriage?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com