[Cerek]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Cerek , there is a reason so much is put on "marriage", words mean things, words are the way we as humans communicate with each other. It's not a Ta-may-to, To-mah-to thing (a pronounciation problem). It's marriage, civil union thing ( a definition problem) two simular BUT differant things trying to be made into one thing.

Yes, John, words DO have meaning. However, "marriage" and "civil union" are not "two similar - BUT different things - trying to be made into one. Rather, "civil union" is a term that was created because we conservatives couldn't stand the thought of two gay people being called "married". What about the couple that lives together for x-number of years but never "officially" get married. According to NC law (and I'm sure several others), after a certain number of years together, their partnership is considered a "common law marriage" and they actually gain the privileges and rights of married couples - even though they never signed a legal document. In the eyes of the state, they are still "married" after being together for a set number of years. Yet many of these couples would not appreciate being considered "married" themselves. I know more than one example where a man and woman have lived together for well over 10 years, but they balk at the suggestion that they are now "married".

So if you really want to get technical about marriage and it's definition - then it should be "defined" as two people that have entered a legal union and it should include the signing of an official document. But the law makes exceptions to this rule. That's because the state believes that two people that have lived together for 7 years have invested equally in the things they own...so each is entitled to half of the stuff if they decide to split up.

Terms and definitions DO change over the years. "Gay" used to mean "happy" or "joyful", but you won't hear anybody using it that way anymore (even though that definition still exists).

I conceded that part of me wants to keep marriage defined as "one woman and one man". But if you step back and look at it objectively, the whole fuss over the term marriage seems rather silly from both sides.

Now I still submit that if you change the definition of marriage ONCE (to allow it to mean a union between two PEOPLE, regardless of gender), then you HAVE set a legal precedent for that definition to be challenged and possibly changed AGAIN to mean a union between two OR MORE people). Despite objections posted previously about this second definition change trying to "cloud the issue", it IS a logical extension of the what can happen if we DO decide to begin changing the definition of marriage...and this is the only "legal" reason I can think of to NOT change the meaning of the term "marriage".

Of course, the same could probably be said about "civil union". There is the possibility that IT'S definition could be challenged by those who want to have group marriages.

And for those who claim I am just trying to confuse the issue, I humbly disagree. I am NOT making the expected comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality or pedaphilia. That is because there ARE OTHER laws on the books to protect against THOSE acts of sexual immorality - and most center on the fact that it cannot be said that both "partners" are "willing" in those situations. But the concept of "marriage" being expanded to include "group marriages" falls under the Law of Unintended Consequences, IMHO. If the government DOES allow the definition of marriage to be changed once, then the door has been opened for future challenges to be made to change it even more.

That is the ONLY "good" reason I can think of to create a seperate term for gay unions. And - as I said before - as long as a "civil union" does grant the same rights and privileges as "marriage", then there is no reason for it NOT to be acceptable to gays...if "equal rights" is truly what they seek.

Yet the Gay Rights Movement keeps insisting that their unions be called "marriage" - and THAT is part of what MagiK and others are talking about when they say that the gay movement is being "shoved in our face"...because much of their agenda IS an attempt to FORCE others to accept their lifestyle. And that simply won't happen. Gays need to realize that their lifestyle and sexual orientation is NOT going to be "accepted" by a large portion of Americans...and they can't MAKE people agree with it. But as long as they DO gain the same rights and privileges, then whether their actions are "acceptable" to others are not shouldn't make any difference.