Historical Fact #1-The word 'MARRIAGE' has ALWAYS been a HETEROSEXUAL word in that it has always defined a relationship between opposite sexes!
Historical Fact #2-The word 'GAY' (as used in reference to homosexuals) is a HOMOSEXUAL word in that it defines a relationship between same sexes.
So common sense says that the term 'gay marriage' is an OXYMORON i.e. a contradiction of terms. But for some idiotic reason the PC FASCISTS expect everyone to forget all known history in their quest to make 'gay marriage' legal and if you dare disagree with them then YOU MUST BE A BIGOT! So, of course, the LAMESTREAM MEDIA propagates the PC FASCISTS position with people like Keith Olbermann painting this debate as a 'civil rights'/bigotry issue. Well I say expecting the government to change the historical definition of the word 'marriage' is NOT a 'Civil Right' and it appears that the majority of Americans (at least in California) agree with me! The facts are simple: this argument has NOTHING to do with civil rights, religion, or bigotry but everything to do with the definition of the heterosexual word 'marriage'. Now I am all for the govt. giving homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples and so that is why the compromise of having legal 'CIVIL UNIONS' for all couples regardless of sex makes the most sense. For one, the holy rollers have zero argument against legal 'civil unions' and it would grant homosexual couples the legal rights they claim they desire. But, of course, the PC FASCISTS say NO! NO! NO! we must have 'gay marriage' and if you don't give it to us then you are a bigot! They basically demand the 'all or none' solution of throwing the historical definition of the word 'marriage' out the window by having the government redefine if from a heterosexual word to an ambiguous word. So if the pro-'gay marriage' people could have their legal rights via CIVIL UNIONS without the use of the controversial word 'marriage' what is their real motivation? Surely it couldn't have anything to do with forcing one minorities views upon the majority could it??? Of course, the right wing holy rollers also want an 'all or none' solution as they desire that Congress waste it's time with a constitutional amendment to define 'marriage' based on the known historical definition. Each sides believes they are 'right' and thus they refuse to compromise.
But why is having the government change the definitions of words a bad idea? Well imagine the oxymoron of 'gay marriage' becomes legal and then we have a married heterosexual couple, Max and Sue. Max is in the Army and he honestly doesn't want to go kill Iraqis because he believes the war is wrong. Based on the PC FASCIST logic used with the 'gay marriage' oxymoron Max could sue the Army to force them to change the historical definition of the word 'homosexual' to include heterosexual couples so he could have the same right as homosexuals to get kicked out of the Army! Eventually people will sue to have the historical definition of 'boy' changed to include 'girl', etc. ad nauseum. It is a slippery slope we shouldn't go down! The oxymoron of "Gay Marriage" is NOT the answer. The real answer is legal "CIVIL UNIONS" for all couples regardless of sexual preference!
cya
Ben
