By Mike Thayer
Let's look at this issue from a purely logical perspective using the English language shall we?
Webster defines marriage as, 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife
SYN. - marriage refers to the state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husband and wife or to the ceremony marking this union.
That's a definition, a description of what is.
Jeff Gordon is a NASCAR driver, it's a definition, a description of what is. Gordon is not a Grand Prix driver, he's not an Indy Car driver, he's NASCAR. That's the description of what is.
Norman Borlaug was a plant pathologist, a definition, a description of what he was. He wasn't a meteorologist, he wasn't a Heliologist (for those of you who live in University Heights, that's a person who studies the sun).
Describing either of these men vocationally in any other way than what they practice/practiced would not be accurate. Each of these men practice/practiced a specialty.
Shouldn't that be respected? Changing the specialty of Gordon and Borlaug changes the meaning and their contribution does it not? Redefining the specialty takes away from what is, it does not add to.....
Shouldn't the argument in the name of equality be to add something to the issue instead of taking some meaning away from people with a redefinition? Shouldn't same-sex couples take pride in creating a specialty? Shouldn't same-sex couples contribute to marriage not by redefining the word, but by crafting a new one? Now THAT's something to embrace, something a lot of people can support! Diversity is healthy and creativity can be an inclusive act. Adding to unions, not taking away or redefining a specialty....
There is an opportunity for same-sex couples to make their mark on society here, trying to redefine marriage - instead of adding to it - is an exercise in squandering if you ask me.
Why shouldn't there be a new term? Why don't same-sex couples want to come up with a term as they see fit? Isn't that a better measure of acceptance?