Madison wrote:Neato Torpedo wrote:Well, that's not exactly true. Folks of the homosexual persuasion have been dealing with stereotypes forever about how gay relationships are only for sex and not for love. Using a word that has no romance or happiness in it just happens to perpetuate that idea.
I'd say using a word with no romance or happiness shows they aren't doing it just for the "thrill". Also having *any* kind of legal bond to a partner would solidify that person and make it clear that they are not part of the stereotype. But that's just how I see it.
Well yeah, that's how you see it. Your motives may be pure and you may recognize them as fully what they are, but there's tens of millions of people that don't recognize the legitimacy of gay relationships. The longer we keep it in the letter of the law that gay relationships are unworthy of having the definition changed to include them, the longer these perceptions will live.
Madison wrote:knapplc wrote:Simply make every joining that is recognized by the state a Civil Union, and we're all equal. The term marriage can go away, or be relegated to religious significance alone, and that's that.
This I agree with. Giantsfan mentioned the exact same thing awhile back and the more I thought about it, the more I liked it.
You don't want to change the definition of marriage but you support changing the definition of civil union?
By the way, when you referred to your lesbo friend as "civilly wed", you were unwittingly legitimizing their relationship as a marriage. Saying they're "wed" means they had a wedding, and the Oxford English Dictionary defines a wedding as "a marriage ceremony, especially considered as including the associated celebrations". Maybe that's why she didn't have a problem with it. QED by OED, sucka.