Gay Dogma

[Stargazer]

Did your professors tell you that words have "real" definitions and "unreal" definitions? Somehow I doubt it. The usage of words can have conventional validity, but no modern philosopher in his right mind would argue that usage can have ontological validity. In the case of gay marriage, what we have is a sectarian religious group attempting to legally privilege its own linguistic convention ("marriage is between one man and one woman") against a widespread, competing linguistic convention ("marriage is between two people") that it finds morally and theologically distasteful. That's it. No ontological linguistic correspondence is at stake here. The nature of language itself is not under threat.

Of course the nature of language is not under threat. It is the nature of society which is. Redefinition of words is merely the instrument by which society is meant to be redefined.

Naturally you're familiar with Orwell's 1984, in which one of the goals of the totalitarian governments in power was to remove or redefine words which might be dangerous to the maintenance of their power, and thus, make it much more difficult to have thoughts and communicate ideas which were dangerous to the State.

"Marriage" has meant one thing and one thing only throughout the vast breadth and depth of human history, and that one thing has been a male-female pair-bond. There have been variations, the most prevalent being a pair-bond system in which a male might have more than one bonded female at a time, and less prevalent a system where a female might have more than one bonded male at a time, but ultimately marriage has always been heterosexual. It is not a matter of language, it is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of fact, cold and hard. I am not trying to trot out religious dogma here; this is not a religious argument. This is an argument of fact, backed by millenia of nothing more nor less than REALITY. What the gay marriage crowd is trying to do is to enter into a FANTASY realm where words are twisted to support that which has never been and can never be.

The argument is for a radical re-ordering of not just one of the most basic facts of human existence, but what can be called THE MOST basic fact of human existence. And that fact is that marriage is a male-female pair-bond, and no amount of calling a homosexual relationship a "marriage" can make, nor ever will make it into a "real" marriage.

You all have been jumping all over Mordecai's reference to heterosexual marriage as "real" marriage, as if doing so were somehow a bitter insult to the dignity of homosexual couples. This is foolishness, because it is not an insult, it is a fact. All the arguing over gay adoption, gay inheriting-from-each-other, gay visiting-each-other-in-hospital, gay taking-each-others-name, and gay whatever-it-is-you-please is disputation over trifles, because two men cannot "marry" each other, nor can two women, because marriage has always been and will always be a male-female pair-bond. Regardless of whether they love each other, hate each other, are able to have children or not, or whatever else may be a characteristic of the relationship, they are married.

Now, Adam and Steve along with Eve and Madison, they may pair-bond if they will. Western society, at least, has gotten over branding such pair-bonds as illegal, immoral, and chargeable as a crime, but when it comes to naming such a pair-bond as a "marriage", well, then they may call it that, but it is not and cannot be marriage.

Come up with another word.

Or I'm going to start calling the rose bushes out front gladiolas.

[Chris Smith]

Stargazer,

At the risk of banging my head against a stone wall here, the English word "marriage" means whatever people use it to mean. A large segment of the American population uses it to mean a contractual, romantic union between two people, regardless of gender. That is a fact, cold and hard. The appeal to ancient history and the passage of laws and constitutional amendments to deny the reality of this widespread usage of the word constitutes a retreat into a fantasy world where social change doesn't happen. This strategy will only continue to fuel the resentment so many already feel toward conservative religious groups that have fought against cultural pluralism throughout our nation's history.

Peace,

-Chris

[Mordecai]

Did your professors tell you that words have "real" definitions and "unreal" definitions? Somehow I doubt it...

Excuse me while I laugh hysterically. It's amazing how people can be on such different pages. Wow. Anyway, now that my ribs hurt... ouch...

marriage-"the actual thing in itself, i.e. a man and a woman living together as husband and wife...."

marriage-"the word for marriage"

See, if I were talking about the word, when I said, "Real marriage," I would have italicized the word marriage.

LOL Now that I've explained it, it's funny again. That was comedy gold to me. (Yes, I have a bizarre sense of humor).

...The nature of language itself is not under threat.

Actually, one of the fundamental and natural rules of language is that things with significant differences are identified by different words. The totalitarian-left's strategy here is to circumvent the natural rules as a means to trick people that two significantly different things are the same, using the gov't to fast track the indoctrination of society. (Apparently, the left wing educational system isn't working fast enough for them).

In reality, if you keep the political movement out of it and simply ask people questions like:

"Is it relevant and good to produce children naturally?" or "Is it best and relevant for children to have both a father and a mother?" a large majority of people in the U.S. will say, "Of course those are good and relevant." So in reality, while people have been manipulated into agreeing that the gov't should call a gay union, a "marriage," they don't actually believe a gay union is actually a marriage.

You, my friend, are the one arguing in favor of passing Constitutional amendments to assert the exclusive claim of a particular linguistic convention.

Which makes perfect sense, since actual marriage (the thing in itself, not the word) has had that designation for generations and the meaning of the word has been derived from the history of marriage, not gay unions. Since all marriage is is a collection of practically arbitrary phonemes, I think the gov't can reserve the word for the social institution that enabled all of mankind to progress and exist as a civilized society. I suppose the gov't would be designating the word in honor of the history of marriage, not unlike the gov't can designate a particular day in honor of a particular historical event. There are plenty of phonemes to go around, and marriage is the only logical choice as a designation for the very foundation of society.

This would be done through 2/3's of Congress and 3/4's of the states, not through manipulation, indoctrination, rogue/activist dictator-judges or any other anti-American means.

My view is that the government should entirely drop the use of the religious term "marriage", and leave it to the public to define their individual contractual associations however they please, and call them by whatever religious or non-religious terminology they choose.

Since marriage is a proven good to any rational person, doing this would defy the Constitutional mandate to, "Promote the public good." The question is, why in the world should the gov't stop giving marriage a unique status, as if it has no inherent value? Do you think it lacks inherent value? Because that would be the only reason to treat it in such a manner. If marriage has inherent value, it would be unjust to treat it like its merely a contract, which has no value per se.

In my view, the acceptance of a Catholic/evangelical definition of marriage over against a liberal Protestant definition comes perilously close to an establishment of religious norms.

The French have also preserved their word for marriage as a means to honor the good it has done and should continue to do, but they are not religious. Anthropologically, a marriage is comprised of a man and a woman living together as husband and wife with the approval of society. That's not a religious institution. It's a social institution, regardless of whether religious people agree with that definition. You know, religious people also agree that the word hamburger signifies a hamburger. That doesn't make the definition of hamburger a religious one.

You say I am against Democracy, and yet I am supposed to be the one attributing evil motives to people? Your hypocrisy boggles the mind.

Well, if you're not trying to get the gov't to change the language, I can't say that you're fighting Democracy. For now, I'll assume you are for Democracy, then, so we can be political allies in many things. Now, if we can get you to support reason and justice by giving credit where credit is due as a means to benefit society, we'll be allies in most things.

[california boy]

"Marriage" has meant one thing and one thing only throughout the vast breadth and depth of human history, and that one thing has been a male-female pair-bond. There have been variations, the most prevalent being a pair-bond system in which a male might have more than one bonded female at a time, and less prevalent a system where a female might have more than one bonded male at a time, but ultimately marriage has always been heterosexual. It is not a matter of language, it is not a matter of semantics, it is a matter of fact, cold and hard. I am not trying to trot out religious dogma here; this is not a religious argument. This is an argument of fact, backed by millenia of nothing more nor less than REALITY. What the gay marriage crowd is trying to do is to enter into a FANTASY realm where words are twisted to support that which has never been and can never be.

Things that were defined by history and tradition have always evolved over time. This is nothing new. Are you really presenting an argument that "It has always been this way so it should always stay this way?"

If it is tradition changing, then here are a few things that were not changed for thousands of years.

A vote was never something women were allowed to do. God said women should be subservant tot their husbands.

The institution of slavery is a God given right. It is condoned in the Bible

Man was never ment to fly. It is against nature and if God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings.

Only males shoud be allowed to inherit property. It is how God wants it.

Transplanting a heart is against nature and against the will of God.

To divorce someone, all you have to do is be a male and say "I divorce you" three times.

Or if you are talking about defending the definition of marriage that you feel a need to protect, then you got a much bigger problem than just the word marriage. Here are a few you are going to need to campaign for.

Wicked used to only mean "evil", whereas now it can often mean great

Bad can mean the same as wicked

Crack used to be something that you saw in sidewalks now it is a drug

Neck is a part of our anatomy, but it also means to kiss.

Pot which is a utensil to cook in, but also refers to marijuana.

Cookie is a food object but it's also a tracking device put on your computer by a website.

Cool used to mean cold. Now it means good.

If protecting a definition is important to you, then literally hundreds of words have changed definitions. Sometimes meaning the exact opposite of what the original meaning was. So quit staring at this computer screen. You got a lot of work to do. When you have these examples changed, I have lots more that will need your attention.

Kind of a silly argument isn't it.

[Chris Smith]

Real marriage=the genuine thing in itself.

You're still missing the point. A word does not have only one "genuine" meaning. Rather, it has a range of conventional meanings, which change over time. There is no absolute right or wrong when it comes to the meanings of words. There is only usefulness, which is determined by popular (not historical) convention.

Actually, one of the fundamental and natural rules of language is that things with significant differences are identified by different words.

As I pointed out in a previous post, this argument is completely fallacious. You and I have significant differences, yet we are both human beings. No one in their right mind would imagine that because we are both human beings, we must be the same in every respect. The label "human being" refers to certain significant shared characteristics, not to the absence of significant differences.

The totalitarian-left's strategy here is to circumvent the natural rules as a means to trick people that two significantly different things are the same, using the gov't to fast track the indoctrination of society. (Apparently, the left wing educational system isn't working fast enough for them).

I am saddened, but not surprised, by your demonization of me.

Which makes perfect sense, since actual marriage (the thing in itself, not the word) has had that designation for generations and the meaning of the word has been derived from the history of marriage, not gay unions. Since all marriage is is a collection of practically arbitrary phonemes, I think the gov't can reserve the word for the social institution that enabled all of mankind to progress and exist as a civilized society. I suppose the gov't would be designating the word in honor of the history of marriage, not unlike the gov't can designate a particular day in honor of a particular historical event. There are plenty of phonemes to go around, and marriage is the only logical choice as a designation for the very foundation of society.

Since we're on the subject of history, here are a few facts about the history of marriage.

1) Until fairly recently in world history, marriage in most cultures (including US culture) was actually a form of property ownership. The woman's body and all of her possessions became the property of her husband. She had no legal right to refuse sex whenever he wanted it, and little legal recourse if she was unhappy or abused. A number of nineteenth century suffragists argued that marriage should be abolished altogether, because it was actually a form of slavery.

2) Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, many American Indian tribes practiced polygamy, serial monogamy, and various kinds of ritual promiscuity and transexuality. These practices horrified the European conquerors, who imposed their Christian sexual norms through brutal beatings, executions, and other forms of physical and cultural violence.

3) Marriage prior to the modern era was often used to forge political alliances, to acquire financial stability, and so forth. The romantic view of marriage did not triumph until the late nineteenth century.

To argue that we have to define marriage exactly the same way our forbears did is seriously misguided. The facts are these:

1) Our understanding of marriage has changed radically over the course of the history of the US and the world. To a large degree, the change has been for the better.

2) There is no logical or moral reason that a society must continue to practice the social institutions on which it was founded, let alone practice them in exactly the same way as at the time of the founding. America's economy was founded on slavery, but that didn't stop us from emancipating the slaves and putting an end to the institution.

3) There is no good evidence that it is socially useful to outlaw gay marriage, whereas there is plenty of good evidence that outlawing gay marriage causes psychological distress for gays and resentment against religion for a much larger subset of the population.

This would have been done, if it could have been done, through 2/3's of Congress and 3/4's of the states, not through manipulation, indoctrination, rogue/activist dictator-judges or any other totalitarian style means.

To characterize the protection of minority cultures against the imposition of majority cultures as "totalitarian" shows a profound ignorance of the principles on which our judicial system was founded.

Since marriage is a proven good to any rational person, doing this would defy the Constitutional mandate to, "Promote the public good."

No one is proposing that marriage should be done away with. How does allowing a small minority to call its alternative form of social organization "marriage" have any negative effect whatsoever on the public good?

Do you think it lacks inherent value?

Like gay marriage, straight marriage has value to the people who practice it and are positively affected by it. This value is not, however, "inherent" in straight marriage as a form of social organization. For those who are negatively affected by straight marriage, it does not have value. The same can be said of gay marriage.

As for the interests of the government, it frankly gains little from marriage as such. It has much more to gain, however, from child-bearing and child-rearing. I do support government benefits for those who have and/or adopt children, regardless of marital status.

Anthropologically, a marriage is comprised of a man and a woman living together as husband and wife with the approval of society.

Anthropologically, marriage is whatever people consider it to be.

Peace,

-Chris

[Mordecai]

You're still missing the point. A word does not have only one "genuine" meaning.

LOL You are the one that is missing my point. I'm not saying a word has one genuine meaning. I'm saying that real marriage (not the word, the thing in itself) is different than a gay union. By extension, because they are different, in order to have an unmuddled dialog, a gay union and a heterosexual union must have unique designations. What good is free speech, if the language doesn't function properly? Is speech really free in that circumstance? Speech can be restricted by the muddling of the language, as I've been trying to explain throughout much of this thread.

As I pointed out in a previous post, this argument is completely fallacious. You and I have significant differences, yet we are both human beings.

Right, just like how a marriage and a domestic partnership are both unions.

No one in their right mind would imagine that because we are both human beings, we must be the same in every respect.

People who didn't know first-hand would think we're the same in every respect, if we had the same name, our addresses were listed as if they were the same, and we had the same social security number. Similarly, people will think a gay union and a marriage are the same (or more accurately, think their differences are meaningless), if they don't each have a unique label to set them apart from being mere union. I explained this before, too. Giving them the same label will create confusion, just like it would create confusion to give us the same name and social security number.

Since we're on the subject of history, here are a few facts about the history of marriage.

1) Until fairly recently in world history...

2) Prior to the arrival of the Europeans...

3) Marriage prior to the modern era was often used to forge political alliances...

None of this is relevant to the debate in any way shape or form. Marriage, from a sociological standpoint is, "Living together as husband and wife with the approval of society." That there have been bad things intermingled with marriage doesn't negate the good of natural reproduction and having a father and mother raising children as a team.

1) Our understanding of marriage has changed radically over the course of the history of the US and the world. To a large degree, the change has been for the better.

Yes, we have the benefit of hindsight to see that not treating women as slaves, for example is superior to treating them as slaves. We can also argue rationally for the good of liberty for all humans, even without hindsight. What the left is proposing can't be rationally supported nor judged via hindsight.

The plan is to alter the language in a way that results in real marriage not having any unique designation. To call lead, "gold," is comparable, as I've pointed out in a previous post. Apparently, you didn't grasp the significance of gold or marriage losing the uniqueness of their respective designations.

In contrast, to preserve the meaning of marriage is not unlike preserving the meaning of 9/11. The date, in itself, is relatively arbitrary (other than the position of the earth in relation to the sun being the same as when the towers fell and we lost nearly 3000 people), not unlike how the word marriage is basically arbitrary. Should we also commemorate the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on 9/11? The left might argue, "They are both man-caused disasters, and preserving our environment is just as important as stopping terrorists from murdering citizens. Commemorating them on the same date will reinforce how they are equally problematic for mankind." That would be a similar injustice.

2) There is no logical or moral reason that a society must continue to practice the social institutions on which it was founded

There is a reason to preserve a social institution that created every civilization known to man, because there is no evidence that a radical restructuring would be able to maintain civilization. It's like arbitrarily teaching a new way of tackling or blocking in football, when the way players tackle and block now works and there is good evidence that changing the way people block and tackle is less effective and more dangerous.

Except you're not just effecting/experimenting on a football team. You're effecting hundreds of millions of people, children in particular.

There is no good evidence that it is socially useful to outlaw gay marriage

No one is suggesting we outlaw it. A strawman argument.

...whereas there is plenty of good evidence that outlawing gay marriage causes psychological distress for gays and resentment against religion for a much larger subset of the population

Actually, that's false. The left has created fake victims in this whole process and fake villains, which is where the resentment is coming from and at least part of the distress. The remaining distress, I would say, comes from a much more complex source. I feel bad for homosexual people for having what I consider to be a sexual disorder and being, for all practical purposes, not able to live as husband and wife with the opposite sex.

... the protection of minority cultures against the imposition of majority cultures...

Protect your minority culture from what? A rational and unmuddled dialog? Why would you want to protect anything from fair and rational speech? How does that make sense?

How does allowing a small minority to call its alternative form of social organization "marriage" have any negative effect whatsoever on the public good?

A strawman argument. No one is stopping them from calling their unions whatever they want to call it.

...For those who are negatively affected by straight marriage, it does not have value...

This represents an error in categorization (again). We're not debating about people's experiences with marriage nor the individual connotations; we're debating marriage, the concept, or ideal. Fathers and mothers raising their children together, in itself, harms no one. Marriage enables the desire to nurture biological offspring,a good in itself, to be expressed, not to mention other good ends mentioned in this thread. Enabling a good to be expressed is a good in itself, meaning marriage, in its ideal, represents a good in itself.

As for the interests of the government, it frankly gains little from marriage as such.

The interests of the government should be the interests of the people, by legal and moral measures.

Anthropologically, marriage is whatever people consider it to be.

First of all, this is nonsense on a couple levels. I chose a particular definition, largely derived from authoritative anthropological sources, and made an argument based on that definition, which I have repeated on numerous occasions. It should be clear what I mean by marriage, at this point. You're playing games, it appears, perhaps to avoid a real debate.

Furthermore, your lack of understanding of proper syntax is partly why you're not understanding my meaning, and the above illustrates that. The word marriage in the above quote box should be italicized. The sooner you accept standard syntax in this context, the sooner you start understanding what I mean by "real marriage."

Marriage, certainly if we're speaking English and discussing anthropology, absolutely can't be whatever people consider it to be. That's because we're speaking English and discussing anthropology. Not only that, I've outlined what marriage is at its core, which I did, in fact, derive largely from authoritative anthropological sources.

[Chris Smith]

Your argument that calling gay unions "marriages" necessary leads to muddled and irrational dialogue is completely absurd, since gay marriage and straight marriage can be more-than-adequately distinguished by using the appropriate qualifiers.

As for your appeal to "authoritative anthropological sources," I daresay your grasp of anthropology is little better than your grasp of linguistics. There is no single, authoritative anthropological definition of marriage. Anthropologists study human cultures as they are lived and defined by the members of those cultures. From an anthropological standpoint, marriage in a particular culture is whatever people at a popular level understand it to be. Since a large segment of our culture disagrees with your preferred definition, your definition most certainly does not represent some kind of exclusive, authoritative anthropological standard.

[Mordecai]

Your argument that calling gay unions "marriages" necessary leads to muddled and irrational dialogue is completely absurd, since gay marriage and straight marriage can be more-than-adequately distinguished by using the appropriate qualifiers.

This is true, but it's also true that lead shouldn't be called, "grey gold," if we can avoid it. It's still going to lead to confusion. Furthermore, even your more moderate proposal (as opposed to the extremist left's proposal) will still lead to people calling gay unions, "marriage," which still results in real marriages not having a unique designation. However, if the gov't uses its authority to help keep the language from being muddled regarding such a fundamentally important social issue by reserving the word marriage for a union of a man and a woman, reason and good will better prevail via unrestricted speech.

As for your appeal to "authoritative anthropological sources," I daresay your grasp of anthropology is little better than your grasp of linguistics. There is no single, authoritative anthropological definition of marriage.

I never said there was. It seems your grasp on what I'm saying is still quite shaky.

From an anthropological standpoint, marriage in a particular culture is whatever people at a popular level understand it to be.

Not when they're talking about marriage in general. In that case, they take what is common in marriage in all cultures.

Since a large segment of our culture disagrees with your preferred definition, your definition most certainly does not represent some kind of exclusive, authoritative anthropological standard.

Perhaps not, but my definition makes sense in anthropology, when discussing marriage in general as opposed to marriage within a particular culture. If it makes sense, it gets authority from reason, which seems appropriate within the confines of a debate.

[Jeff K.]

Your argument that calling gay unions "marriages" necessary leads to muddled and irrational dialogue is completely absurd, since gay marriage and straight marriage can be more-than-adequately distinguished by using the appropriate qualifiers.

You mean like "union" versus "marriage". More than adequately distinguished right there.

[Jeff K.]

As for your appeal to "authoritative anthropological sources," I daresay your grasp of anthropology is little better than your grasp of linguistics. There is no single, authoritative anthropological definition of marriage.

I wouldn't exactly call that an endorsement of changing marriage even further.

[california boy]

People who didn't know first-hand would think we're the same in every respect, if we had the same name, our addresses were listed as if they were the same, and we had the same social security number. Similarly, people will think a gay union and a marriage are the same (or more accurately, think their differences are meaningless), if they don't each have a unique label to set them apart from being mere union. I explained this before, too. Giving them the same label will create confusion, just like it would create confusion to give us the same name and social security number.

Since you have conseeded that what people have considered marriage in the past is not what it is today. You have also conseded that it is not the definition of marriage that concerns you. From what I can tell of your opposition to gay marrriage, it for you comes down to your feeling that people will become comfused about what marriage is.

So when a heterosexual couple tells you they are married, what do you assume that to mean?

When a gay couple tells you they are marrried, what do you assume that to mean?

We have many words in the English language that is the exact same word but have two completely different meanings. Are you confused by them as well?

For example bow, can mean a tied ribbon or it can mean a weapon. Do you get confused about what someone is saying when they say I shot a deer with my bow?

Just yesterday, a friend that I have known for a number of years called me to tell me that his partner of 48 years passed away. They have not only been a couple for 48 years, they were in business together for a number of those years. Together they ran a successful manufacturing business and employed others in the process. They both put into the social security system in this country all during their working years. They both paid taxes like everyone else. However, because the person he loved and shared most of his life with happened to be a man, the government will cut off all of his partners social security benefits.

This isn't about some abstract, hard to defend definition of marriage that causes you to confuse gold with lead. This, for Ralph who is now in his 70's, is about the fairness of our government allowing one surviving spouse to continue to collect social security and denying another spouse the benefits for the sole reason that they were attracted to the "wrong" gender. How is that equality in America???

[Jeff K.]

Is prior marriage perfectly what it was meant to be today? No, but the commonalities are telling. Man, woman, commitment. Three factors the gay community does not practice.

[Jaybear]

It is from a linguistic standpoint, no matter what you say. In essence, you're saying, "Although we don't believe that a gay union is the same as a marriage, we still want the gov't to pretend that they are the same, in effect adopting a false dogma."

I have read this several time. I still don't understand your point.

Please clarify. When you say "gay union" are you referring to a gay couple which is lawfully married?

When you use the word "same", same in what sense? Obviously a gay couple is different than a heterosexual couple in that one couple is gay and the other is heterosexual. Is that what you mean by not the same?

If not, what do you mean?

What do you mean that we want the government to "pretend" they are the same. Who is asking the government to "pretend" that gay couples are heterosexual couples? More accurately, we are asking that they be treated equally. Is that what you meant?

I appreciate your response. I really am trying figure out why you keep throwing out the term "gay dogma."

[Stargazer]

Stargazer,

At the risk of banging my head against a stone wall here, the English word "marriage" means whatever people use it to mean. A large segment of the American population uses it to mean a contractual, romantic union between two people, regardless of gender. That is a fact, cold and hard. The appeal to ancient history and the passage of laws and constitutional amendments to deny the reality of this widespread usage of the word constitutes a retreat into a fantasy world where social change doesn't happen. This strategy will only continue to fuel the resentment so many already feel toward conservative religious groups that have fought against cultural pluralism throughout our nation's history.

Peace,

-Chris

Please don't hurt your head, Chris, you need every brain cell.

Did I intimate that there wasn't anyone who might have thought that way? No, I didn't.

But just how "large" is that "large segment" anyway? My appeal to ancient history notwithstanding, the "large" group you speak of may be "large" in the sense of if you gathered them all into a stadium they'd be quite impressive, but stood up against the rest of humanity, even just in this country, they would be a loud, but pathetically small band of outliers.

Social change happens, yes. And the possibility does exist that gay "marriage" may eventually become something in the United States. But that still doesn't make it "marriage". And it isn't just conservative religious groups that are fighting against "cultural pluralism". The majority of the people in California who voted against gay "marriage" were not necessarily voting out of religious principle.

Backlash isn't going to be directed only against those opposed to labelling gay unions as "marriage". And there's a lot more people, even in California, who are against calling it that, than there are for it.

[Daniel2]

[begin irony]

Hot on the heels of Mordecai

[semlogo]

[begin irony]

Hot on the heels of Mordecai

[semlogo]

Please don't hurt your head, Chris, you need every brain cell.

Did I intimate that there wasn't anyone who might have thought that way? No, I didn't.

But just how "large" is that "large segment" anyway? My appeal to ancient history notwithstanding, the "large" group you speak of may be "large" in the sense of if you gathered them all into a stadium they'd be quite impressive, but stood up against the rest of humanity, even just in this country, they would be a loud, but pathetically small band of outliers.

Social change happens, yes. And the possibility does exist that gay "marriage" may eventually become something in the United States. But that still doesn't make it "marriage". And it isn't just conservative religious groups that are fighting against "cultural pluralism". The majority of the people in California who voted against gay "marriage" were not necessarily voting out of religious principle.

Backlash isn't going to be directed only against those opposed to labelling gay unions as "marriage". And there's a lot more people, even in California, who are against calling it that, than there are for it.

Stood up against the rest of humanity, even just in this country, we Mormons would also just be a "loud, but pathetically small band of outliers."

[Jaybear]

And the possibility does exist that gay "marriage" may eventually become something in the United States. But that still doesn't make it "marriage".

Head firmly affixed in the sand. You remind me of the evangelical Christians that refuse to accept that Mormons are Christians, as if they own the trademark on the word "Christian."

And it isn't just conservative religious groups that are fighting against "cultural pluralism".The majority of the people in California who voted against gay "marriage" were not necessarily voting out of religious principle.

Right, its just a coincidence that the well funded anti-gay marriage groups are dominated by Mormons, Catholics and Evangelical Christians.

[Minos]

Please don't hurt your head, Chris, you need every brain cell.

It is one thing to have to chase down insults in topics relevant to this board. It is another to have to chase them down when the topic is about a sociological topic not a religious one.

Closed.