sittingduckz:John2010:Klipspringer:networkn:
So again, you have no issue with what's happening you just don't want it called marriage?
Spot on.
+ Spot on.
And repeating myself, that for myself, for reasons I have explained regarding how many hold the word marriage as representing a special type of relationship that they have and I believe that they have a right to have that protected and respected by others. Instead gays (the public face of them anyway) deny them that right and are just totally dismissive of it without consideration.
Along the same lines, and adding to what I posted before, some modern dictionaries give a warning about use of the word "gay". In my Oxford Dictionary of English it says "The word gay cannot be readily used unselfconsciously today in these older senses (my note: referring to all the other meanings and pre-existing meanings of gay) without raising a sense of double entendre."
What gives gays the right to usurp control of this word and for them to get upset if people use gay in other senses in interviews, etc? Furthermore, I assume that their adoption of the word gay (my understanding is that homosexuals themselves promoted the calling of themselves as gays) was because of the positive connotations all of the existing meanings of gay has. Now they are telling us we can't use those other useful meanings without their being offended (and in the case of gay leaders, telling us that our doing so will cause gays to commit suicide (e.g. ref. Interviews with gay movement leaders regarding the gay shirt quotation incident, and in which "jumping off bridges" were also mentioned).
So gays (the public face anyway, because I know many individuals are different) are intent on usurping the rights of others, not just gaining them.
So you are also fighting against people who use the word marriage incorrectly ie. Immigration purposes, Marriages of convienience, Gold digging?
Or is it just the Gays you are against?
You are demonstrating the problem; as part of your argument you are assuming that I am against gays in order to dismiss what I am saying. Nowhere have I said that, and all through it is very clear that what I have a difficulty is that I believe others have a non trivial pre-existing right to what the word "marriage" means insofar as the relationship between two people is and that right should not be usurped.
Similarly, if I were to appear on TV and describe a shirt as "gay" then I would be abused (whereas gay has a number of pre-existing meanings (all positive, by the way).
I have also pointed out that it is only the word "marriage" I see a difficulty with and have made clear that is what my only concern is on the matter. Not that gays should not have similar rights to some sort of relationship of equal standing.
Instead, typical of the concerns I have expressed, you have jumped in and made an assumption about my beliefs in order to use that to dismiss what I have said. Your reaction is typical of those that, in my view do gays a disservice in the eyes of many.
For the record - I am not against gay rights. I can also say that although "straight" I have mixed freely and equally with homosexuals all of my life since early teenage years, including in those times when it was not wise for them to identify themselves as being such. I have also mixed in the transsexual community (I recognise they are not necessarily the same, but there is considerable overlap) and I suspect that I was a customer at the likes of Carmen's International coffee lounge in Vivian street (for coffee and cakes
) before many here were twinkles in their father's eyes (and maybe before some of their fathers were twinkles in their grandfather's eyes too).Oh, and for the record too - I am not religious (in fact the very opposite) as no doubt some of you have also been assuming.
Trusted
Administrator
ID Verified
Geekzone
