Words, words, words, it's all about words. Proposition 8 redefines for all time, at least for California, what the word “Marriage” means. Lets try to simplify things with an analogy:
Lets say that relationships are like vehicles. Different types of vehicles would in this analogy represent relationship types. The heterosexual relationship (know for centuries as marriage) would, in this analogy, be the standard average passenger vehicle, for this discussion, “the Car”. The homosexual relationship (also around for centuries, albeit not in “as great of numbers’) could be represented as perhaps by the relatively infrequently seen, Motorcycle.
No offense to those motorcycle enthusiasts who may be reading this, allow me a little license here please.
How would California (society) respond if four California Supreme Court judges suddenly decided that motorcycles should now be referred to as “Cars”? More to the point, how would the voting public respond following this silly decision by the court, to a proposition to forever change references to these types of vehicles, back to the original term “motorcycles”?
My point is simply this:
Clearly there are differences in the two types of vehicles (relationships). Referring to them by using the same word does not change this. It only adds confusion. It makes the word “marriage” rather arbitrary, requiring further definition in order for the listener or reader to fully comprehend what is being discussed. This runs contrary to the natural development of language. Language grows to be more and more descriptive with time. New words are added to the languages of the world, each and every year. Changing a perfectly well excepted and defined words meaning is fraught with problems.
Using the same word for two diametrically opposed types of vehicles, clothing, or other consumer products would be marketing suicide. Consider buying a regular cola and later discovering it was really a diet lemon-lime drink, or a sack of flour only to later discover at home that you had purchased powdered milk.
We currently have perfectly good words and binding legal contracts available for same-sex couples to use to both celebrate and secure their relationships. We do not need to change our dictionaries for same-sex couples to achieve “equal rights”. The family code of the State of California has more than adequate provisions, made on their behalf. To obtain proof of this, do your own research at the following link:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7059521563+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Unfortunately, what we do have to do, thanks to the liberal, activist leanings of the California Supreme court, is change our Constitution to include those 14 little words that are causing the homosexual community such distress:
Lets say that relationships are like vehicles. Different types of vehicles would in this analogy represent relationship types. The heterosexual relationship (know for centuries as marriage) would, in this analogy, be the standard average passenger vehicle, for this discussion, “the Car”. The homosexual relationship (also around for centuries, albeit not in “as great of numbers’) could be represented as perhaps by the relatively infrequently seen, Motorcycle.
No offense to those motorcycle enthusiasts who may be reading this, allow me a little license here please.
How would California (society) respond if four California Supreme Court judges suddenly decided that motorcycles should now be referred to as “Cars”? More to the point, how would the voting public respond following this silly decision by the court, to a proposition to forever change references to these types of vehicles, back to the original term “motorcycles”?
My point is simply this:
Clearly there are differences in the two types of vehicles (relationships). Referring to them by using the same word does not change this. It only adds confusion. It makes the word “marriage” rather arbitrary, requiring further definition in order for the listener or reader to fully comprehend what is being discussed. This runs contrary to the natural development of language. Language grows to be more and more descriptive with time. New words are added to the languages of the world, each and every year. Changing a perfectly well excepted and defined words meaning is fraught with problems.
Using the same word for two diametrically opposed types of vehicles, clothing, or other consumer products would be marketing suicide. Consider buying a regular cola and later discovering it was really a diet lemon-lime drink, or a sack of flour only to later discover at home that you had purchased powdered milk.
We currently have perfectly good words and binding legal contracts available for same-sex couples to use to both celebrate and secure their relationships. We do not need to change our dictionaries for same-sex couples to achieve “equal rights”. The family code of the State of California has more than adequate provisions, made on their behalf. To obtain proof of this, do your own research at the following link:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=7059521563+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Unfortunately, what we do have to do, thanks to the liberal, activist leanings of the California Supreme court, is change our Constitution to include those 14 little words that are causing the homosexual community such distress:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment