One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

So, your opposition to gay marriage is the use of the word "marriage"?

The fact that language is an ever evolving thing kind of makes that a less than strong argument. The meanings of words one hundred, two hundred or five hundred years ago are not the meanings we use now. Words from 20 years ago don't always mean the same thing they did then. Words 20 years from now will mean different things.

If the result of civil unions is the same as marriage, why not just call it marriage?

*More Sighing*

No, my opposition is to the fact that gays can't do without the term "marriage". I frankly don't give a damn. But, some people do.

I'll turn your argument right back on you - if language is so irrelevent, than why not just use a different term?

You know what's ridiculous about this: most places in the US would probably allow Civil Unions. Use your own logic to extend the natural evolution of things: Now gays have a foot in the door. Maybe we'll all evolve to just call it marriage. Maybe we won't.

In either case, you're getting the legal rights, which is the most important part of it. And probably in a generation or two, you'd get the term as well. Who knows?

But instead, we have the minority attempting to IMPOSE upon the majority. All or nothing is their stance. It seems that the majority is in favor of nothing.

Compromise leads to progress. All or nothing leads to people entrenching themselves into their beliefs even further.

...and when you're the minority who wants something, it's idiotic to turn down the compromise that gives it to you because you can't stand the conditions, which you argue is meaningless, but the fact that you can't stand that condition shows it's not.

So maybe the term does mean something afterall, which renders your argument moot.

In any case, people have to start somewhere.