Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelangelica
So, your problem is mere semantics?
Just the use of the word "marriage" is your problem?
Words always change in meaning over time-- and even according to the society using them .
eg "Silly" originally meant "saintly".
"Marriage" is now also a legal term, not just a religious word.
|
If homosexuality is natural, which I believe it is—indeed it may even be beneficial—then there is no good reason to prevent homosexuals from any of society's rights and/or privileges. This I believe. But is getting “married” one of them? Surely getting civilly united into a domestic partnership must be one them. But “married”?
Yes, it’s all about the titular word.
Given the present legal disposition of supreme courts in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, etc., I have to conclude that “marriage” can be a right and/or privilege for the people, regardless of their sexuality. I can only defer to supreme-court decisions on the matter, because, privately, I seem to hold on to this notion that two men can’t be married (my Middle Age affliction).
But, hey, I’m getting better and I’ve seen the light. Two men can be married, and happily, to, according to Hasanuddin, and I believe him. This has to be a good thing. (None of my three marriages lasted 12 years!)
Now, here’s the rub in many good people’s eyes: What about the polygamists and members of other groups of preferred sexuality, or combinations there of? Yes, maybe even bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and other permutations of nature will gain a legal foothold with the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, with my philosopher’s hat on, I have to as if this is where we’re headed.
I’d be willing to bet London to a brick that more than half of the American population privately feels this way, rightly or wrongly.
