Dictionary definitions change from decade to decade. The dictionary doesn't tell us what a word should mean, it tells us what the contemporary meaning is. Because a word has been used to define something in the past doesn't mean that it will continue to do so in the future, or that it should.

But isn't it what the majority sees the word as meaning what defines it?

Either you're missing the point completely or intentionally trying to reduce it to an anecdote in order to invalidate it.

Which is it?

No.

He is spot on. He is hitting the point exactly and validly.

Why is appealing to tradition a fallacy? Since when does tradition have to exist outside of logic, and isn't it a fallacy itself to follow logic over tradition (ie, should a bride wear black to a wedding would it be wrong to state that it is against the tradational wedding garb?)?

It is the combination of tradtion and logic which creates a just society. To eschew one in favor of the other is dangerous, to say the least.

Yes.

What the majority of people who are aware of the concept or meaning of a spoken item percieve it to be is what defines tha item.

Read: vernacular.

In the ultimate sense, what is generally accepted as a definition (read: majority) is the definition, so long as the general acceptance is within the qualified awareness of the subject.

No.

Which definition of vernacular?
Point proven.

Marriage has always, to me, meant the union of two souls under love. Gender has never factored into the definition to me, nor has religion.

Pat yourself on the back more then go try to figure out a bit about language. I know what you're TRYING to get at, but it's nitpicky and clearly not what I was getting at.

You mean understanding what words mean and how they are used, like you displayed an inability to.

So in which context do you want to define a definition?
ooops its that old word context again, not of course suggesting that you have a problem with words:har:

What you need to do is drop all of the "the" (or add a "one of" to it) and discard the claim about "majority"as they simply make it incorrect....by which time your claim is no longer what you were trying to claim which is why the short and simple reply of "no" was sufficient though you couldn't grasp it.

So lets guess, you are going back into the realm of Skybird and that "preacher" who doesn't know scripture:yeah:

I believe I've been confused by the term 'parent' shown on all the govt applications over the years, they've obviously meant a more traditional definition of biological parents instead of the now adopted definition of parent- a caretaker of the offspring in their own species.

So now I wonder what does a grown child put in those spaces when it was raised in an orphanage ?

Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty ?

I have seen marriage as just a legal contract which offers some benefits and protections while also having downsdes, I see love as being a completely different subject.

"An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions:

• The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.
  
• The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In cases where circumstances have changed, this assumption may be false."

http://trenchperspective.com/wp-cont...9/08/pipe.jpeg

A tradition is just something people have done over a long time. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it's actually a good idea.

Examples of "bad" traditions include slavery, female circumcision, witch burnings, and marriages reserved for people marrying within their race.

Only if you believe in tyranny of the masses.

I see two antagonistic concepts here:

1. Marriage is a contract between the state and two people, designed to force a couple to stay together to ensure that the children have two parents of differing genders, which does indeed require that it be between a man and a woman. One problem I have with that is that in a truly enlightened society the concept of what it takes to properly raise children has changed. Another is the question of how, as has been pointed out, that affects opposite-sex couples who cannot, or will not, have children. The 'tradition' itself has changed over the centuries.

2. A religious ceremony uniting two people "under God". If your church subscribes to the biblical injunction that homosexuality is "an abomination" then your church will refuse to perform such ceremonies for same-sex couples. If not, then same-sex couples should have the same priveligdes as others, and the State should stay out of it.