Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
Why not define your own covenant ...?
|
That's what I just suggested -- that a gay couple be able to define their own union as "Same-Sex-Marriage", thereby adopting a new terminology which is only for same-sex unions. They would define it, and you could look it up in the dictionary, and it would be there under the "S"'s. A brand new term, just for these unions.
Put it another way. From what I understand, you're saying that you would be fine if they called their union "Waka-ma-zoo", because that would be a term that they adopted for their union. But what I'm asking you is -- could they call it "Waka-marriage-azoo"?
If you say they could call it "Waka-ma-zoo" but not "Waka-marriage-azoo" then I'd argue that your problem is not with differentiation, because there clearly is a difference between the words "marriage" and "waka-marriage-azoo". Very different words. Heck, take out the dashes, and they look almost nothing alike.
If you say they could call it "Waka-marriage-azoo" then why not "Same-Sex-Marriage"? It's still a term which is used solely for same sex unions, and which distinguishes it from any other form of marriage.
Does that make more sense?